HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-03-2002 Regular Meeting
REGULAR MEETING COMMISSION CHAMBERS
September 3, 2002
Augusta Richmond County Commission convened at 2:07 p.m., Tuesday,
September 3, 2002, the Honorable Bob Young, Mayor, presiding.
PRESENT: Hons. Boyles, Mays, Kuhlke, Colclough, Shepard, Beard, Cheek,
Williams and Bridges, members of Augusta Richmond County Commission.
ABSENT: Hon. Hankerson, member of Augusta Richmond County Commission.
Also present: Jim Wall, Attorney; George Kolb, Administrator; Lena Bonner,
Clerk of Commission.
The Invocation was given by the Rev. Dante Tobias.
The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Please be seated.
The Clerk: [inaudible]
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, let’s move ahead with the recognitions.
The Clerk:
RECOGNITIONS:
A. PROCLAMATION
Mr. Michael E. Curry (Requested by Commissioner Beard)
Guard/Forward
Detroit Pistons
The Clerk: Mr. Curry, would please join the Mayor and Commissioner Lee Beard
here?
Mr. Beard: And his mother, also.
The Clerk: And the parents of Mr. Curry. Today the Mayor and the members of
the Commission would like to recognize and to honor Mr. Michael E. Curry. Mr. Curry.
We are honoring him today with a key to the city, as well as a proclamation.
In recognition of Michael Curry’s outstanding athletic accomplishments,
1
Whereas, Michael graduated from Augusta’s Glenn Hills High School where he
represented the school as a member of the varsity basketball team, and
Whereas, Mr. Curry was a first team All Trans-America Athlete Conference
selected to as a result of his many accomplishments on the Georgia Southern University
basketball squad, and
Whereas, Michael Curry’s basketball skills earned him recognition in the
European League, and
Whereas, Michael was a three-time European All-Star and four time team MVP,
and
Whereas, Mr. Curry’s talents carried him to the NBA where he played seven
years; Michael was a five-year team captain for the Detroit Pistons and the Milwaukee
Bucks. Currently Mr. Curry is the NBA’s Players Association president, and
Whereas, Mr. Curry is the co-founder of Augusta Sports in Action. This
organization sponsors basketball camps, provides tutoring, and conducts toy giveaways.
Now, therefore, I, Bob Young, Mayor of the City of Augusta, do declare
September 3, 2002 to be Michael Curry Day, and urge all citizens to recognize him for
his outstanding contributions to basketball and the community.
It witness whereof I have unto set my hand and caused the seal of Augusta,
rd
Georgia to be affixed this 3 day of September, 2002.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor: Michael, we’re mighty proud of you and all you’ve accomplished.
[inaudible] NBA strike, he said absolutely not.
(Laughter)
Mr. Mayor: Michael, we’re proud of what you’ve been able to accomplish, the
role model you have set yourself up as in this community, someone for the young people
to look up to, to model themselves after someone with character. Appreciate that. As a
token of our appreciation, wherever you go around the world, playing in Europe, we want
you to know that you’ve always got a home in Augusta, Georgia, and here’s a key to the
city.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Beard: I would just like to take this opportunity to congratulate Michael and
his family and what they have done for the city of Augusta, what he has done for the city
of Augusta. I’ve known Michael for some time. He grew up in the church that I attend,
and his whole family is a part of that church. I just think that this [inaudible] show young
kids what hard work and ambition can do. That you can do anything that you want to.
Because this is the greatest country in the world and anything that you set your mind to,
you can do it. But there must be some ingredients attached to that, and that is hard work
and persistence. And Michael has shown us that. Congratulations.
(A round of applause is given.)
2
Mr. Curry: I want to thank everyone. Mayor Young, the hometown [inaudible]
long journey for me to [inaudible] and [inaudible] opportunity but I attended school and
earned my degree in finance and that’s the area I figured I would work in if I didn’t play
pro ball. But I’ve told kids all along that if they are persistent and work hard and get that
opportunity [inaudible] education [inaudible]. As you get older, [inaudible] our kids.
[inaudible] teach the kids that [inaudible] education [inaudible]. I just wanted to thank
you all. Thank you.
(A round of applause is given.)
B. CERTIFICATION OF APPRECIATION
Mr. John C. Haynie
Mr. Bubba Smith
Sig Cox, Incorporated
RE: Donation of 4-ton A/C unit to Augusta-Richmond Animal Control
The Clerk: We would now like to pay homage to Mr. John C. Haynie and Mr.
Bubba Smith from the Sig Cox company. Dr. Bragdon and staff from the Animal
Control, they also have presentations. These certificates of appreciation are being given
to Mr. Bubba Smith, a well as Mr. John C. Haynie, for donating a four ton air
conditioning unit, materials and labor, to the Augusta Richmond County Animal Control.
Your generous contribution to the shelter will ensure that the kennels will be climate
controlled. On behalf of the Mayor and Commission, thank you.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor: We want to thank you and your company for your contribution to our
animal shelter. This is what we preach down here all the time, partnership of the private
sector working with the public sector [inaudible] citizens of our community. Thank you.
You stepped forward and made a difference out there in the lives of these animals. It’s
really admirable and we certainly thank you for that.
Dr. Bragdon: I don’t have much add [inaudible]. Eternally grateful. Thank you.
Mr. Haynie: Thank you. Glad we could help. My wife brought a picture from
The Augusta Chronicle [inaudible] cats. [inaudible]
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, in view of the size of the group we have here for
item number 1, we’ll go ahead and take that item up now.
The Clerk:
PUBLIC SERVICES:
3
1. Motion to deny a request by James Hoar for an on premise consumption
Liquor & Beer license to be used in connection with Underground Augusta located
at 840 Broad St. There will be a dance hall. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved
by Public Services Committee August 26, 2002)
Mr. Mayor: Is the petitioner here? Mr. Hoar here or his representative?
Ms. Colohan: I am Jean Colohan, here on behalf of Mr. Hoar.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, we’ll get to you in just a moment. And are there objectors
present in the Chamber today? All right. Go ahead and raise your hand, objectors. We’ll
get a count. Mr. Saul, are you going to speak again?
Mr. Saul: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: Okay, thank you. Hold you hand up now so Mr. Wall can get them
counted. All those hands that we can see and identify. Mr. Wall will get those. You got
a count, Mr. Wall?
Mr. Wall: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: You can put your hands down. Are there some people here who are
supporting this petition? If you would raise your hand we can get a count of those, too.
Okay. Thanks. Mr. Sherman, you want to give us the background on this, please, and
then we’ll get into the discussion.
(28 objectors noted)
(38 supporters noted)
Mr. Sherman: Mr. Hoar is the application. He is applying for an alcohol license
at 840 Broad Street. The License & Inspection Department and the Sheriff’s Department
reviewed the application. Because it is next door to a synagogue, we are having to
recommend that it be denied. He’s asking -- the business will be a bar. The alcohol
ordinance requires that a bar cannot -- it states that a bar cannot locate within 100 yards
of a church. This is directly next door, and for that reason we are recommending that it
be denied.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Let’s hear from the applicant, if we may. If you’ll give us
your name and address for the record, please.
Ms. Colohan: My name is Jean Colohan. I’m here on behalf of James Hoar. My
business address is 511 Court House Lane, Augusta, Georgia 30901. I’m a little
confused as to why we’re even here today, gentleman. The issue is that there is a bar
opening next to a church. But we’ve seen no substantial proof that that is actually a
church. I have done extensive research into the synagogue and into Mr. Hoar’s research
that he has done. There has been no foundation of a church established. There have been
4
no federal forms filed, no 1-3C filed with the Secretary of State. It is showing the
business active as a dry cleaners as of July 23 of this year. The organization on its
international web site shows their location as 239 Broad Street. The State of Georgia has
the synagogue located at 239 Broad Street. No one has been able to say how long they
have been active at 850 Broad Street. We have not been provided a copy of a lease to
show when they started occupancy. We don’t know if they’re still active at 239 Broad
Street and at 850 Broad Street. We do not know if they have informed the Fire Marshall
or the police that they are using that as an occupied status. Is it a place of worship? Is it
a place of public assembly? According to John [inaudible], the fire inspector, the last
inspection on that building was 1998 as Kay’s Cleaners. Before we came up here, I have
pulled the tax assessment for all of the listed properties. 850 [sic] Broad Street, which is
our location, is a downtown business, which that shows. 840 [sic] Broad Street, which is
the other location in question, shows it as a downtown business, a retail establishment,
which is not tax exempt as a church. In addition, 239 Broad Street, which is located in
the Olde Town District, is also not listed as a tax exemption church. I have a copy of the
property appraisal form that the church would have to fill out to claim tax exempt status
and to qualify a church for ad valorem relief, which is not on the file with the County
Commissioners’ office. And in light of that, I just don’t see where the issue is to begin
with. When Mr. Hoar first started this, one of the first things that the Code section
required him to do is to get a land plat of the survey of the land, and one of the first things
that that survey shows is that the location is within the required distance of a church.
Right then, this would have stopped. However, I have a copy of that plat and the closest
church it shows is St. John United Methodist, which is .3 miles. There is nothing else on
there.
(A round of applause is given.)
Ms. Colohan: Who else could just open up a storefront and say we’re here?
There’s no signs other than a little 8-1/2 by 11 printed on a computer form. There is
nothing saying when their hours of worship are. Nothing saying what their hours of
operation are, who is there, who is their Rabbi. There is nothing of that sort of thing that
any other typical church or synagogue would have. In light of all this, we are also
worried about the future of the food and beverage industry downtown. There are
numerous locations within that radius that would be affected by this. What about
Augusta Common which is right across the street? There has been some speculation,
some hearsay and in local newspapers that it has been said that Augusta Common will
have it. Well, I don’t see what the difference is between Mr. Hoar having his money
invested in a business and the city of Augusta having their money invested in a business.
It’s going to affect him as well. I have a list of at least 33 businesses right here that are
going to be affected by the outcome of this. I have numerous realtors, wholesalers from
food and beverages that are going to be affected by this outcome. But I think if you look
at the bare bones issue, it’s not a church within the eyes of the law. It’s not a church
within the State.
(A round of applause is given.)
5
Ms. Colohan: So I don’t how we can deny Mr. Hoar his business license, his
liquor license, based on it being in the proximity of a church, when there is no church
there. Thank you.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Saul? I want to hear from Mr. Saul and the objectors. Mr.
Wall, let me ask you a question. Is there some written criteria for what constitutes a
church or a synagogue or house of worship or a temple or whatever in the context of the
ordinances that we have before us?
Mr. Wall: No, there is nothing in our alcohol ordinance that specifically defines
what would constitute a church or what does constitute a church. I think that the issue is
whether or not this location has been held out to be a church, and I assume that is --
Mr. Mayor: So it would be within the discretion of the Commission, then, to
determine what constitutes a church, the way the ordinance is structured?
Mr. Wall: Not what constitutes a church. I think once -- the issue is whether it is
established to be a church at that location. And if you determine that there is a church at
that location then I don’t think you have any discretion. And so the sole issue I think is
whether or not there is a church at that location.
Mr. Mayor: Well, let me rephrase my question. It would be the discretion of the
Commission to determine whether the activity there constitutes activity that would be
conducted at a church?
Mr. Wall: Not to pick at words, but it’s not discretion. It’s a fact finder.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Wall: Do you find as a matter, based upon the evidence submitted, that there
is a church? If there is, then the ordinance would preclude it. If you find that there is
insufficient evidence that there is a church there, then you could grant that.
Mr. Mayor: All right. But then my question was that there is no written criteria
under the ordinance as to what constitutes a church, how you define a church?
Mr. Wall: That’s correct.
Mr. Mayor: The individual members of the Commission would have to determine
whether it meets that test, whether it’s a church or not, based on the --
Mr. Wall: If it’s established to be a church.
Ms. Colohan: Can I address that briefly?
6
Mr. Mayor: We get our legal advice from our Attorney. Let’s hear from the
opponents and we’ll come back and give you a chance to rebut.
Mr. Saul: I’m Louis Saul and I am representing Chabad Lubavitch of Augusta,
Inc., a Georgia corporation, which is incorporated by the Secretary of State of Georgia.
This is a certificate of incorporation and it says [inaudible].
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Saul, we need for you to speak into the microphone to get you on
the record, please
Mr. Saul: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Would you say that again?
Mr. Saul: I will say that we are incorporated under the laws of the State of
Georgia by the Secretary of the State of Georgia, and that corporate charter, as I just
furnished to counsel, states that we are a synagogue. We’ve operated at the Broad Street
location for approximately eight months. All the ordinances of the Fire Department have
been met. The owner of the building has met with the Fire Department. When the
building was improved, approximately $30,000 worth of improvements have been made
to the building. It stores the Holy Scroll, five books of Moses. We’ve had services at the
location and I personally have attended them. It is in fact a synagogue. And to come
here today and tell you gentlemen that it’s not a synagogue is ridiculous. We have
complied with the Secretary of State’s requirements and have had corporate charted
issued for this synagogue. We are occupying the premises and we object to the location
of this bar.
Mr. Mayor: You wanted to be heard?
Mr. Colohan: I would just like to know, Mr. Mayor, why there has been nothing
on file that we could find while you -- there is no sign, there is no public display.
Everything that I have pulled has showed that that location is not a church. It is a retail
establishment. There has been nothing when the survey was done. Nothing that I got ten
minutes before I came up here that the Tax Office has. Nothing showing that it’s even
been a church. And what else would an average citizen other than follow proper protocol
know what is located next door?
Mr. Mayor: Has your client made any improvements to that property?
Ms. Colohan: Yes, they have.
Mr. Mayor: How much is that, has been invested in that? And have you
continued to make improvements since this issue came up.
Ms. Colohan: I’ll let him answer that directly.
7
Mr. Hoar: Everything is on the drawing board on that. I mean a lot of stuff has
been measured and materials estimated. Cost factor and labor. Different companies to
deal with labor. All my ads and stuff are prepared on my computer, ready to go out to
radio stations, to newspapers, to the TV stations for possible ads.
Mr. Mayor: Have you done any remodeling? Have you spend any money doing
any construction work or doing anything?
Mr. Hoar: Construction work, I had the landlord go in and check the A/C unit,
and she’s put in a sump pump in the bottom of the unit to dry it out. There was a
moisture problem in there. She’s done stuff like that. I’ve come in and did a lot of
drawings on the walls, stuff like that, cuts, different renovations areas, going to have to
be renovated. But as far as physically, most of it is all on the drawing table. Like I was
told by the City, until this goes through and I paste my sign up, put my sign in place, wait
and see if it goes through. And we don’t go any further than that.
Mr. Mayor: Do any of the Commissioners have any questions? Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I guess my question is, is where is the hole in this
system? How can we effectively plan this city if we don’t know what businesses or
establishments are located where? What do we do to correct this problem and keep it
from happening again in the future?
Mr. Mayor: If I could just make some observations. It appears to me that because
of the very character and nature of downtown, you’re going to have mixed use
development. There’s just no way around it. We went through something somewhat
similar to this not too long ago when a restaurant wanted to open up next door to a
residence, and these people had bought this home and remodeled it and spent a
significant amount of money fixing it up as their private residence in the middle of a
commercial district. And so naturally you’re going to have commercial activity that’s
going to be scattered throughout the district. And likewise, you have the situation now
where you have an alcoholic beverage establishment that finds itself perhaps locating
next to a house of worship. But that’s the unique about a downtown and a commercial
district, that you get the mixed use. Now under the ordinance, there are specific
requirements that preclude an alcoholic beverage establishment locating within 100 yards
of a church. That’s pretty cut and dry. But it would seem to me, and we’ve talked about
this before, that we need to take a look at the application of these ordinances to the
downtown district. And there needs to be an ordinance that takes into account the mixed
use developments that you have downtown. And what I would like to see is -- I’m just
throwing this on the table to move this along. If the application for this license is turned
down, as I understand it, then you can’t come back at that location for 12 months; is that
correct, Mr. Wall?
Mr. Wall: That’s correct.
8
Mr. Mayor: Okay, if he were to withdraw that application and give us an
opportunity to recraft the ordinance that would allow for mixed use downtown, then he
could bring it back, wouldn’t be any prejudice and he could be considered under the new
ordinance?
Mr. Wall: That’s correct.
Mr. Mayor: And there wouldn’t be any grandfathering of anything under the
previous ordinance? In other words, you wouldn’t have the 100 yards in there if that
were the decision of the Commission, for that location. I just make that suggestion. Mr.
Mays?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mayor, this was a lot of discussion in that particular committee
meeting. It got a little bit heated naturally on both sides. I think one of the things that
you brought out, and I think we obviously should not be hypocritical in this situation
knowing that while we speak, or at least after this meeting is over with, sometime within
the next two weeks, that the Administrator and the Attorney will be bringing back an
ordinance to the city to deal with just that. Not only to deal with Augusta Common as
has been mentioned because obviously that is one that a lot of public money and private
money has gone into, and an event that will be held there very soon, even though it’s
under the guise of a temporary license. I think that in fairness to both the applicant and to
the synagogue, from the standpoint that the city ordinance is going to be basically
forthcoming, it will be up to the Commission then to decide what way we are going to
vote up or down on it. But an ordinance is obviously coming. Because the question came
up to a point that what if this occurs, quite frankly, in every block, and particularly from
thth
say 13 to 5. We’ve had a court case decision which has basically defined to a point
what is going to go, and I don’t think you can spend the rest of the city’s lifetime in every
decision that you make dealing with it as a matter of court action. The ordinance is going
to basically be there and we in committee the other day, from the standpoint, and I’m
glad we’ve had time to think from that standpoint and a lot of questions came up, those
that Mr. Saul pointed out in his presentation, but also those that not only the petitioner
may not have pointed out, but questions that were raised in terms of definition. And I
think if the city Attorney has basically left us to a point that if we’re going to have to deal
with a discretion of what’s there, and not what is there. Because those same questions
came up in reference to occupancy. I’m hearing what improvements have been done.
Also to a point that if it’s placed upon the applicant to show proof of every issue that’s in
there, objectors also have to, regardless -- and I’m not -- it was clear in terms of what was
there, and I think they made the point of saying that this is an active synagogue and
ongoing. However, there were several questions brought up in terms of the occupancy
and whether those questions have been answered. Staff could not provide us with that.
We’re going to have to determine and define that. So I think you are caught in a
quandary of whether or not you decide to turn one person’s license down today, knowing
that in two weeks you probably will be probably will be presented with an ordinance that
if the same license came up, then it would be basically a moot issue. I’m going to make a
motion that we allow the application to be withdrawn without prejudice.
9
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion on the floor. Is there a second to that motion?
Mr. Colclough: I’ll second it.
Mr. Mayor: It’s been seconded. Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, just a follow up on something that we passed some
months ago but have not followed through in action, is one, our hospitality resource
panel, similar to what they have in Athens Clarke County, I think would resolve a lot of
these issues by putting the people that are actually out in the trenches making things
happen or those affected by it, as the synagogue is here, allowing them a forum to work
together on resolving ordinance issues, business issues and other things before it gets to
this floor. I think a lot of times when people are allowed to talk, to work together on a
common solution, that they can come up with a workable solution that would meet
everyone’s needs. Also, again, this brings is to a point with our downtown being what it
is and us trying to revitalize it is we’re going to have to address the creation of an
entertainment district at some point in time to help us deal with situations like this. To
prevent us from having so many closed storefronts in the city. The music industry in this
city has been one that has been completely filled with talent, and we have to provide
these people with an opportunity to showcase their talent, as well as protecting our
churches and synagogues. But again, the best way, I feel, to do this is to go to Athens
Clarke County, get their charter for their hospitality resource panel, implement it here in
Augusta using Convention & Visitors Bureau personnel, as well as people from
churches, hospitals, schools and other agencies that deal with the hospitality industry
within this city, and allow them to work these problems. They can do more in their
meetings based on their knowledge and experience than we can sitting up here for two or
three hours every other week dealing with the same issues. And I would encourage this
Commission to move forward with this hospitality resource panel and make it happen.
Copy it after Athens Clarke and adjust it to our needs.
Mr. Mayor: Anything further? Yes, Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges:
Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Mayor, in the past, in regards to any
alcohol license we’ve always granted the business owner his wishes as long as there were
normally no objections to that alcohol license. And then we’ve used the law, we’ve used
our ability -- or our permission by our ordinance to use discretionary judgment in whether
a business should be given a license or not. We’ve have instances downtown where the
100-yard ordinance has come up before. It’s not something that has come as a surprise
this time. It’s not something that is unfamiliar to us. And I can understand and
appreciate the request to come up with a new ordinance to allow alcohol and religious
establishment to be located next to each other. However, this synagogue has come before
us, based on the laws as they are now. And what it sounds like to me is we’re saying let’s
see if we can find a way in which a religious institution doesn’t interfere with the dollar
bill or business downtown. I’m really not sure that’s where we want to go with a
message we want to send out to a community, particularly in regard to the faith-based
community. I think based on our ordinance as it exists, based on the definitive wording
10
of it -- I think we’ve had our License & Inspection people check through this; their
recommendation is to deny based on our ordinance. The synagogue is asking that we
enforce that ordinance. And I think legitimately asking that. And I think that’s all we
so I make the substitute motion that we concur with the decision
can do here today,
of the Public Services Committee and deny the license.
Mr. Shepard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion and a second. Substitute motion. Any further
discussion? Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: My question is to the applicant. We have two motions on the floor.
I don’t think any response was made to --
Mr. Bridges: We can’t hear you down here, Bill.
Mr. Kuhlke: Excuse me. I said we never got any kind of response from the
applicant and that’s going to have, it’s going to make a decision on how I vote. I don’t
know whether we want to give them an opportunity to say anything.
Ms. Colohan: Well, I guess there is speculation that there is going to be a new
ordinance drafted. We don’t know when that’s going to happen or even if that is going to
be finally approved by the full board. What we would ask is that there be just a
probationary license based on the outcome of that. Obviously he’s not going to be
opening up for business Friday night, so we just ask that if there is new ordinance, if it is
going to work around this, then we ask for a probationary license until that new ordinance
is passed to allow him to continue moving on in the progress that he has made.
Mr. Kuhlke: It appears to me that -- I don’t know how he’s opening up Friday
night if he hasn’t done any construction.
Ms. Colohan: That’s what I’m saying. We will not be opening up Friday night.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, I’m not even sure to a point of whether the probationary
situation could even be done. What I was trying to reach was a realistic medium in that I
know and Commissioners know and it would be left to us as to whether or not a different
ordinance passes that deals with downtown or not. But what I was trying to do was to be
as fair to one applicant with a small business as I would be to the government of this city
and for larger business interest in terms of where the Common situation has already come
up. In addition to that, the reason why obviously something has to be dealt with in terms
of changing the law and this is not to knock or to vote against it. I know I have probably
voted in more cases -- in fact, I remember the previous case in which it ended up, and I
did not vote for that particular license. I brought that up, the court standing, because I
don’t think we can settle every issue that we have with this body in court. At some point,
11
we’ve got to deal with putting laws on the books that stand, and that businesses or entities
can co-exist. For instance, this point and example. If the applicant, for instance, decided
to -- whether he rented a larger space or not, let’s just say hypothetically he did that,
because I understand it’s a lot of buildings there that could be rented -- and decided to
knock out a wall and put in a restaurant. Then you still would end up with alcohol and
the synagogue existing next door to each other. Because the license that applies for
restaurants does not apply to bars. So you then would then still have, if you’re trying to
prohibit, in reality the two of them being together, then the only thing you’ve got to deal
with is a different application and then the law -- if alcohol is the common denominator,
then alcohol becomes legal. Because then it’s in there because the restaurant would then
be able to do that. So I mean, you know, that’s the common sense point I’m trying to
make. If you’re going to end up dealing with an ordinance very shortly or if the applicant
decided he’s going to do that and deal with Sunday sales, deal with [inaudible], he can go
with the whole operation, he can go with the whole nine yards of it, and then you’ve got
liquor, beer, wine, anything that you would like, that’s going to be in there and can be
legal and it would not be a question. We have another one on this table today to approve
where you’ve got a church and a restaurant that are basically back door and front door to
each other. But the definition changes because one is a restaurant and one deals with a
bar. So, you know, you could do hypocrisy, make it legal real quick, and that’s the only
thing why I put the motion I put out there, that it gives us at least the opportunity that we
are not doing an ordinance after the fact. Because if the other people who come behind
this applicant are going to be granted a license, then should the time frame of the
ordinance that keeps one business from being in business and other business from being
out of business? And I just was trying to put a common sense motion on there that I
thought would get to that because obviously the ordinance is going to come forth and it’s
going to be dealt with and then we’ll decide whether or not it’s going to be passed. But
obviously something we are going to have to deal with. As I said, and I said the same
thing I said in committee meeting, if folk think the millions of dollars that they put in the
middle of that block and the Common is not going to operate where folk don’t drink
liquor and be over there, then that is the most hypocritical thought that could ever take
place in this whole city. Cause that’s going to happen. That’s going to be a point of
reality. So are we going to deal with this every week or are we going to deal with going
to Superior Court with different cases every week to deal with it, or are we going to put
an ordinance in place that basically protects the life blood of where people can coexist in
a special downtown business district? And that’s why I made the motion I made.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams and then Mr. Bridges.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just want to get a couple of answers to a
couple of things. I’m very sympathetic to the synagogue and what their purpose are and
what they are trying to do. Mr. Mayor, you and I discussed this afternoon about growth
in the city, and we know growth comes both good and bad. We can’t sit here and say
well, just want the good growth and we know that the bad come in and we won’t be
operating that, either. But I’m concerned about the Common that coming more so than
what’s on the floor right now. What’s going to happen if we either pass or not pass this
and the Common, you said, Mr. Mays, public and private dollars went into, it’s going to
12
be within the same distance. Have anybody thought about either parties, whether it be
the synagogue or the applicant, about a different location, whether it be downtown or
something else? We going to have to bite this bullet one way or the other as a unit of
Commissioners because of the comments and what’s going to take place there. But there
ain’t no sense in fooling ourselves and saying that, you know, we can put up a
smokescreen and hide behind it. We need to face this. If there is an ordinance coming
from Mr. Wall or from our legal standpoint, we need to talk about it as Commissioners
and find out when it’s going to be brought forth and how it’s going to be brought.
Because I think we are going to open up a door I don’t think we are going to be able to
close, and in one respect if we word that thing in a certain way. But have anybody
thought about another location? Have anybody considered if -- I heard the applicant say
he have not done any construction work. He got some plans lined up and some plans he
want to do, but evidently this is not going to work, the way it looking now, but have
anybody thought about a relocation of somewhere? And I think the synagogue may have
mentioned about in this day and time in light of what’s going on they have not advertised
for a certain reason. So have there been a thought on either side at all?
Ms. Colohan: In reference to the bar location, I know that my client was able to
get it at an extremely reduced rate due to connections in the local music industry, so I
don’t know if that would be a viable option.
Mr. Saul: I’ve been called by one of the local bar owners and he wanted me to
give him Mr. Hoar’s name, and I did, and that local bar owner wants to sell his bar to Mr.
Hoar. There are plenty of alcohol establishments in this community. There are plenty of
bars on Broad Street. You’ve got the Board of Education which is going to bring 300
people downtown. You’re going to have children going to and from the Board of
Education. We conduct Sunday school, Bar Mitzvah lessons, lessons for children in the
synagogue. We have services during the day and we have services in the evening. We
do not need a bar next door to the synagogue. Now you can come up with a new
ordinance, and if the community gets behind the synagogue, you won’t be able to pass
the ordinance. We want the Common to exist, and I told the city Attorney that we will
not oppose the location of a bar across the street in the old gas building, Atlanta Gas
Light building, or in the Common. That’s a commitment that we would make. We do
not want a bar next door.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Bridges?
Mr. Bridges: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And the issue has come up before. There
are different ordinances that we’ve got in regards to beer and wine and then alcohol and
then restaurant and then a bar and this type of thing. What we’re dealing with today is an
ordinance concerning a bar, and of course this is a religious institution that’s next to it
with common walls, I understand. And they meet -- the synagogue meets on Friday
night, Saturday and Sunday for different types of services, so it’s going to be used
frequently when the bar would probably be the most active, and that’s on the weekend.
And they’re asking that we enforce our ordinance. I think that is what we are going to
have to do in this case. Like I said, we normally support the business owner except in
13
cases where there is other disagreement with these things, and we certainly have that
today. Also in regards to the new ordinance that’s been proposed, I don’t know what the
ordinance is going to be that comes back or even if we have one, if that motion passes
today, but I’ve sat on this board for seven years now and I’ve seen things come back to
me I thought we was headed one direction, and then by the time the votes were counted
they were headed in the exact opposition direction. So a new ordinance may not be what
all of us might expect it to be. I’m sure there are a lot of people who would like to have
some input should a new ordinance be drafted. Also, I think Mr. Saul has brought up
another good point in regards to the Board of Education coming downtown. And as the
Mayor said, we’ve got mixed use down there, so these are just issues that downtown is
not going to be strictly for, the bar owners, the restaurants that serve alcohol, there’s other
people that are going to be down there and locate down there and we want them down
there. We want that. And we’re going to have to support that. And I think today, we’re
not denying anyone alcohol that wants to come downtown. There are plenty of places,
restaurants, other bars that you can acquire that within walking distance of this location,
so we’re not denying that to anybody. It’s open and it’s available. And I think what
we’ve got to do today is just enforce our ordinance in regards to this issue.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, I’ll be brief. I agree with Mr. Bridges. We have the
ordinance, we had the distance requirements. I think in order to be consistent with what
we have done in the past, we have to apply the ordinance as we find it today. And if
there is a future ordinance, let it be debated in the future. And I think you’re right, Mr.
Bridges, what you think is coming back, you may not recognize it all when it comes
back. So Mr. Mayor, if that hasn’t been said, I call for the question on the motion.
Mr. Mayor: The question has been called on the substitute motion, and that is to
deny the request for the license at 840 Broad Street.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Mayor, can I get some clarification, please, sir?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, sir.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Saul said he was willing to waive the Common across the
street. Is that something we can do, though, if that’s a guideline? Unless the ordinance
change, Jim, can we do that?
Mr. Mayor: I don’t believe the synagogue can waive a city ordinance. I mean it
kind of speaks for itself.
Mr. Williams: Well, I understand, Mr. Mayor, but the suggestion was, and I’m
trying to get some clarification, and that’s why I asked for clarification is that whether or
not we can waive -- the synagogue said that they would be willing to not protest that. I’m
saying that if that’s a law, and I been preaching up here about the law is the law. And
14
that’s all I’m trying to find out now. Is that the law, Jim, or is it something we can decide
to do if we feel like it?
Mr. Wall: Well, that is a tough question in the sense that you phrased it.
However, if the synagogue consents to the opening of a bar across the street, they are the
ones who can complain the non-enforcement of the ordinance. They are also the ones
that had the question raised concerning the establishment of the church at that location.
So therefore under the circumstances of this, then in my opinion they could consent to it
and allow the bar to go in across the street.
Mr. Williams: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: The question has been called on the substitute motion. We’ll go
ahead and call for the vote now. All in favor of the motion to deny, please vote aye.
Ms. Colohan: Mr. Mayor, may I address one more thing?
Mr. Mayor: We’re voting.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Colclough and Mr. Mays abstain.
Motion carries 7-0.
The Clerk: For the record, Mr. Hankerson is out of town today. He’s attending a
conference and will not be in attendance at today’s meeting.
Mr. Saul: Thank you very much.
(A round of applause is given.)
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, we have -- we’ll take a brief recess and allow the
Chamber to clear. Madame Clerk, do we have any additions or deletions to the agenda?
The Clerk:
ADDENDUM AGENDA:
CORRECTION TO THE AGENDA:
Item 47 should read: Discuss additional funding for the Augusta Museum of
History and Lucy C. Laney Museum.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA:
1. Statement of Support for the Guard and Reserve.
15
2. Approve City’s incentives for Continental Airline Services.
3. Approve Letter of Support for Literacy Grant Proposal by the People of the
Way Deliverance Evangelistic Church, Inc. and PDC Refuge and Economic
Development Center, Inc.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection to adding those three items to the agenda?
None heard, so we will add those to the agenda. All right, let’s go ahead with the consent
agenda.
The Clerk: The consent agenda consists of items 1 through 45. That’s items
1 through 45.
Mr. Mayor: Well, we just did item 1.
The Clerk: 2 through 45
. For the benefit of any objectors to our alcohol
petitions, if you will please signify your objection by raising your hand when the location
and the petition is called.
PUBLIC SERVICES:
2. Motion to approve a request by Eugene Curry to transfer the retail package
th
Beer license used in connection with E & J Grocery located at 1229 ½ 12 Street to
th
1219-B 12 Street. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services
Committee August 26, 2002)
3. Motion to approve a request by Carol Pryor for an on premise consumption
Beer license to be used in connection with Cohn’s BBQ located at 1556 Gordon
Hwy. District 2. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee August
26, 2002)
4. Motion to approve a request by Soon J. Hong for a retail package Beer &
Wine license to be used in connection with Thrif-Tee Supermarket located at 232
Sand Bar Ferry Road. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services
Committee August 26, 2002)
5. Motion to approve a request by Carol Rodriguez for an on premise
consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Rio Bomba
Hispanic Restaurant & Lounge located at #2 Eighth Street. There will be a dance
hall. There will be Sunday sales. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public
Services Committee August 26, 2002)
The Clerk: Are there any objectors to those alcohol petitions, as to amend the
Code Section 6-2-5 to provide for alcohol sales in the Augusta Common area?
Mr. Mayor: No objectors are noted. Would there be any objection to adding the
addendum agenda items to the consent agenda? Do we need any discussion on any of
those? Items 1 through 3? Any objection to adding those to the consent agenda?
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor?
16
Mr. Mayor: Yes?
Mr. Boyles: Thank you. I’d like to hear a little bit about item 2.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. How about items 1 and 3 to the consent agenda? No
objection heard, so Madame Clerk, let’s if we could include those with the consent
agenda.
Mr. Cheek: I move to approve the consent agenda.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to approve.
Mr. Beard: Second.
Mr. Mayor: All right, would you like to pull any items from the consent agenda?
Mr. Cheek: I’d like to have item 39 pulled for discussion, please.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Item 39 for Mr. Cheek. Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: 36.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard, item number 36. Any other items?
PUBLIC SERVICES:
1. Deleted from the consent agenda.
2. Motion to approve a request by Eugene Curry to transfer the retail package
th
Beer license used in connection with E & J Grocery located at 1229 ½ 12 Street to
th
1219-B 12 Street. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services
Committee August 26, 2002)
3. Motion to approve a request by Carol Pryor for an on premise consumption
Beer license to be used in connection with Cohn’s BBQ located at 1556 Gordon
Hwy. District 2. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services Committee August
26, 2002)
4. Motion to approve a request by Soon J. Hong for a retail package Beer &
Wine license to be used in connection with Thrif-Tee Supermarket located at 232
Sand Bar Ferry Road. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public Services
Committee August 26, 2002)
5. Motion to approve a request by Carol Rodriguez for an on premise
consumption Liquor, Beer & Wine license to be used in connection with Rio Bomba
Hispanic Restaurant & Lounge located at #2 Eighth Street. There will be a dance
hall. There will be Sunday sales. District 1. Super District 9. (Approved by Public
Services Committee August 26, 2002)
17
6. Motion to approve free transportation for passengers in recognition of the
tragedy that struck America on September 11, 2001. (Approved by Pubic Services
Committee August 26, 2002)
7. Motion to approve Augusta Public Transit’s participation in the Georgia
Power Electric Bus Project. (Approved by Public Services Committee August 26,
2002)
8. Motion to approve Amendment to Augusta-Richmond County Code Section
6-2-5 to provide for alcohol sales in the Augusta Common area. (Approved by
Public Services Committee August 26, 2002)
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES:
9. Motion to approve Disability Retirement of Mr. Charles Bartlett under the
1977 Pension Plan. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee August 26,
2002)
10. Motion to approve allocation for Façade Grant for 760 Broad Street in the
amount of $30,000. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee August 26,
2002)
11. Motion to approve Year 2003 Proposed Action Plan for CDBG, ESG and
HOME funds. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee August 26, 2002)
12. Motion to approve the use of work crews involved in the clean up of vacant
lots and evictions at a cost of $75, 440.00 and refer to Finance Committee for
funding source. (Approved by Administrative Services Committee August 26, 2002)
PUBLIC SAFETY:
13. Motion to approve the purchase of 42 additional Mobile Data Terminals for
the Sheriff’s Department. (Approved by Public Safety Committee August 26, 2002)
14. Motion to approve infrastructure upgrades for Cisco Works and Network
Associates Sniffer. (Approved by Public Safety Committee August 26, 2002)
15. Motion to approve the replacement of obsolete HP printers and Compaq
laptops. (Approved by Public Safety Committee August 26, 2002)
16. Motion to approve the upgrade and additional modules for the Track It Help
Desk Software for Information Technology (IT). (Approved by Public Safety
Committee August 26, 2002)
17. Motion to approve the disposal of surplus obsolete computer equipment for
sale at a reduced price to local government employees. (Approved by Public Safety
Committee August 26, 2002)
FINANCE:
18. Motion to approve the acquisition of One (1) Ford Explorer Truck for the
Augusta Coroner’s Office from Bobby Jones Ford of Augusta, Georgia for
$23,748.60 (lowest bid offer on Bid 02-150). (Approved by Finance Committee
August 26, 2002)
19. Motion to approve the acquisition of One (1) Ford Explorer Truck for the
Augusta Regional Airport from Bobby Jones Ford of Augusta, Georgia for
$31,147.17 (lowest bid offer on Bid 02-148). (Approved by Finance Committee
August 26, 2002)
18
20. Motion to approve the emergency acquisition of One (1) 70-foot Crane Truck
for the Augusta Utilities Department – Construction Division from Hydraulic
Machinery, Inc. of Tampa, Florida for $87,600. (Approved by Finance Committee
August 26, 2002)
21. Motion to approve the acquisition of One (1) Ford Explorer Truck for the
Augusta Marshal’s Department from Bobby Jones Ford of Augusta, Georgia for
$23,748.60 (lowest bid offer on Bid 02-150). (Approved by Finance Committee
August 26, 2002)
22. Motion to approve contract with Stone Mountain Productions to produce the
Laser Show and Pyrotechnics Display as a finale to the grand opening of the
Augusta Commons on October 26, 2002. (Approved by Finance Committee August
26, 2002)
23. Motion to approve the acquisition of One (1) Single Axle Dump Truck for the
Augusta Recreation Department from Mays International Trucks of Augusta,
Georgia for $43,900.60 (lowest bid offer on Bid 02-110). (Approved by Finance
Committee August 26, 2002)
24. Motion to approve the acquisition of One (1) Agricultural Tractor for the
Augusta Recreation Department from Jenkins Ford Tractor Company of Augusta,
Georgia for $22,500.00 (lowest bid offer on Bid 02-116). (Approved by Finance
Committee August 26, 2002)
25. Motion to approve Cost Allocation Plan Update to be done by KPMG.
(Approved by Finance Committee August 26, 2002)
26. Motion to approve lease expenditures for the Hatcher Building Lease from
Contingency Account. (Approved by Finance Committee August 26, 2002)
27. Motion to approve free transportation for passengers in recognition of the
tragedy that struck America on September 11, 2001. (Approved by Finance
Committee August 26, 2002)
28. Motion to approve low bid award to Advanced Air Technology, Inc. for
heating and air conditioning for elections warehouse in the amount of $11,600.00.
(Approved by Finance Committee August 26, 2002)
29. Motion to approve designating Contingency Fund as a funding source for the
work crews associated with the clean up of vacant lots and evictions at a costs of
$75,440.00. (Approved by Finance Committee August 26, 2002)
ENGINEERING SERVICES:
30. Motion to approve procedures for the public dissemination of project
information and associated Augusta-Richmond County Code Requirements.
(Approved by Engineering Services Committee August 26, 2002)
31. Motion to approve an Ordinance to amend Augusta-Richmond County Code
by amending Section 5-2-6; to provide mandatory sewer connection; to provide
penalties for failure to comply; to provide an effective date; to repeal conflicting
Ordinances; and for other lawful purposes. (Approved by Engineering Services
Committee August 26, 2002)
32. Motion to approve Request for Proposal for low cost financing and plumber
services for residents of Richmond County regarding the mandatory sewer tie-in
policy. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee August 26, 2002)
19
33. Motion to approve an Option for Easement between Michael G. Elliott and
Susan B. Elliott, as owners, and Augusta, Georgia, for the following property
located at 320 Pineview Drive for a purchase price of $3,505.83: 6,927 square feet,
more or less, of permanent utility and maintenance easement. (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee August 26, 2002)
34. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 184, Parcels
59.01, which is owned by Princess Tucker, for an easement on the Pineview Sanitary
Sewer Project, more particularly described as 2,994 square feet, more or less, of
permanent easement and 1,753 square feet, more or less, of temporary construction
easement. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee August 26, 2002)
35. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 13-2, Parcels
11.03, which is owned by Commercial New Lease Realty, Inc., for an easement on
the Alexander Drive Water Line Project more particularly described as 396 square
feet, more or less, of permanent easement and 185 square feet, more or less, of
temporary construction easement. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee
August 26, 2002)
36. Deleted from the consent agenda.
37. Motion to authorize award and execution of a contract with Montgomery
Watson Harza to provide engineering services and construction for the Tobacco
Road Surface Water Treatment Plant and related appurtenances in the amount of
$55,223,108. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee August 26, 2002)
38. Motion to ratify award of a contract to the lowest bidder, Beam’s Pavement
Maintenance Company, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $146,850.00 to be funded
from the Solid Waste Facility Account # 541-04-4210/5432220 for Perimeter
Drainage System Emergency Repair at Phase IIB Landfill. (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee August 26, 2002)
39. Deleted from the consent agenda.
40. Motion to authorize condemnation of a portion of Tax Map 129, Parcel 5.2,
which is owned by Doge, Inc., for a right-of-way in connection with the Morgan
Road Improvement Project, more particularly described as 1,396.88 square feet,
more or less, of permanent slope easement and 6,497.06 square feet, more or less, of
temporary construction easement. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee
August 26, 2002)
41. Motion to approve Change Order Number One to Blair Construction
Company in the amount of $10,598.00 for Paving Various Roads, Phase VII (Capital
Project Budget Number 323-04-200823707) to be funded from the project
construction account. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee August 26,
2002)
42. Motion to approve Capital Project Budget (CPB# 323-04-201823762) Change
Number One transferring funds from project construction to engineering. Also
authorize Public Works and Engineering to award engineering services contract in
the amount of $214,184.41 to Rochester & Associates, Inc. for the Travis
Road/Plantation Road Drainage Improvements, Section II. (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee August 26, 2002)
20
43. Motion to approve granting an easement to Georgia Power in connection
with Deans Bridge Road median and intersection improvements project. (Approved
by Engineering Services Committee August 26, 2002)
PETITIONS & COMMUNICATIONS:
44. Motion to approve the minutes of the regular minutes of the Commission
held August 20, 2002 and the Special Called meeting held August 26, 2002.
PLANNING:
45. ZA-R-151 – A request for concurrence with the Augusta-Richmond County
Planning Commission to approve an amendment to the Comprehensive Zoning
Ordinance for Augusta-Richmond County to add a new Section 26-2, thereby
establishing a time expiration on semi-institutional uses. (Approved by the
Commission August 20, 2002 – second reading)
Addendum Item 1. Statement of Support for the Guard and Reserve.
Addendum Item 3. Approve Letter of Support for Literacy Grant Proposal by the
People of the Way Deliverance Evangelistic Church, Inc. and PDC Refuge and
Economic Development Center, Inc.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion to approve the consent agenda, which includes
items 1 and 3 from the addendum agenda. And we’re pulling for further discussion items
36 and 39. All in favor of the motion, please vote aye.
Mr. Colclough: Madame Clerk?
The Clerk: Yes?
Mr. Colclough: Let it be known that I vote No on Sunday sales.
Mr. Bridges: And the same in my regard, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk: Okay.
Mr. Colclough and Mr. Bridges vote No on Sunday sales portion.
Motion carries 9-0. [Item 5]
Motion carries 9-0. [Item 2-4, 6-35, 37-38, 40-45, Addendum Item 1 and 3]
Mr. Mayor: I see Ernie Smith is here from the Airport Commission. If we could
go to item number 2 on the addendum agenda.
Addendum Item 2. Approve City’s incentives for Continental Airline Services.
21
Mr. Mayor: I had a meeting this morning with some representatives from the
Airport Commission and from the Chamber of Commerce, and the Continental Airlines
service appears on track to come to Augusta, but there are some things Continental
Airlines would like us to do, and the community incentives, as they’ve been described to
me, total over half a million dollars. What we’ve been able to do is identify some
specific infrastructure components to those incentives that have a value of about
$100,000 that we would like to request the city use as an incentive just as if we were
running a water or sewer line and doing it for an industrial use or pave a road or
whatever. Permanent improvements that would belong to the city and to the airport. And
none of the money would be spent until, unless and until there is a firm agreement, and I
believe Mr. Wall is working on a contract. That we have a signed contract with
Continental to Augusta. Mr. Smith can probably add a lot more detail to what I’ve said
in summary.
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, thank you very much. I just found -- I was reading the
backup and didn’t know.
Mr. Mayor: It happened right before lunch today.
Mr. Boyles: Still kind of warm? But Mr. Smith, I applaud what you are doing
and was not questioning it. I just wanted to know and maybe give you a chance to speak
on behalf of the airport and what you are trying to do.
Mr. Smith: As you all know, Mr. Mayor and Commissioners, we’ve been
verbally seeking to bringing air service to Augusta. It’s not a dream any more. It’s an
absolute reality, so we’re in the final stages of ensuring that this reality can be
implemented, which is why we’ve come to the city. Continental has made a request at
our last Airport Commission meeting for some very specific items, and these items and
process are only brought forth when they are specifically intending upon coming. Here
in Augusta, and the aviation industry across the United States, we are basically the
darling of the nation because we’ve done something in two years that many airports have
not within ten years. So on the federal side, we really and truly have racked up. We’ve
been designated as an aviation development zone for the state. We are really rolling with
the Federal Aviation Administration. Their interest is significantly piqued at the progress
that we’ve made. Continental is not coming to do us a favor. They are coming because
they know that this is a magnificent business opportunity, and it would should municipal
unanimity for us to move forward with the request that we’ve submitted to you. As I
said, we’re not dreaming any more. We’re in the home stretch. This is the third phase,
and the fourth phase will be for them to make their announcement of the date that they’re
coming. The only thing we’re waiting on is the date. This is why we’re seeking to get
these monies from the county so that there is unanimous support and consent with respect
to where we’re going.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
22
Mr. Cheek: Just a comment. Mr. Mayor, this is consistent with what many cities
across the country do in the form of subsidies to attract and hold airlines. It’s a very
difficult market for the airlines in this day and age when people are looking for ways to
market their cities to attract them, and this sounds like a very good way to do that and get
Continental here to provide some much-needed competition to and from the Augusta area
to other places.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Anything further? Yes, Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles:
Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’m certainly satisfied with what I read and
I’d like to make a motion that we do approve the
with what Mr. Smith has said.
City’s incentives for Continental Airlines.
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor: And the funding source on that was identified as recaptured UDAG.
We have a motion and a second. Further discussion? All in favor, please vote aye.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Smith.
Mr. Smith: Thank you. As an added jewel, I’d like to add that there was a
question about brand loyalty. You need no longer worry about brand loyalty because
Continental, Delta and Northwest will use the same ticketing process. You can use the
same miles on each of these airlines. You fly out of Augusta on Continental, you can fly
back on Delta. You fly on Delta and Northwest, you can fly back on Continental. So
brand loyalty no longer applies.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Smith. Appreciate that. Now you can go out and
raise the other $400,000. All right. Madame Clerk, we have a number of people here
with respect to item number 47. If we could skip over and take that one up next.
The Clerk:
FINANCE:
47. Discuss additional funding for the Augusta-Richmond County Museum and
Lucy C. Laney Museum.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke:
Mr. Mayor, I had asked Commissioner Shepard to put this on the
Finance Committee agenda last week. He did so and I think it comes to the Commission
without a recommendation. But as you all are aware, the Augusta Museum and also
Laney Craft Museum is being funded through CVB, which a portion of the grant money
that we have given them to give out to organizations that bring room nights into Augusta.
23
Neither one of these organizations really fit in that category to a high extent. So with the
I would like to propose
money running out at the end of this month for the Museum,
that we earmark $125,000 out of contingency with $75,000 going to the Augusta
Museum and $50,000 going to the Laney Craft Museum.
Mr. Williams: Second that, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: All right. We’ve got some people here. Did you want to speak?
Mr. Loehr: If we’ve got the money, we’re happy.
(Laughter)
Mr. Mayor: Ms. Epps, did you want to speak?
Ms. Epps: Ditto.
(Laughter)
Mr. Mayor: All right. Any discussion from the Commissioners? All in favor of
the motion, please vote aye.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, could I ask where that brings contingency down to? A
pretty near number will be fine.
Mr. Kolb: It’s pretty near somewhere between $800,000 and $900,000.
Mr. Bridges: That’s after everything we’ve done here today? We’ve done about
four things that hit contingency today. That’s okay. I won’t hold the meeting up. I can
get that information later.
Mr. Kolb: I’ll give you a report.
Mr. Mayor: We have some people here for item number 46, Madame Clerk.
Let’s back up and do that.
The Clerk:
PUBLIC SAFETY:
46. Motion to approve the purchase of uniforms for all Fire Department
personnel from Command Uniforms, Inc. (No recommendation from Public Safety
Committee August 26, 2002)
24
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb, are you chairing the water on this one? Number 46, the
Fire Department uniform bid.
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, this item was considered by
your Public Safety Committee and referred back to the Commission with no
recommendation. I’ve had a chance to look at the process for the uniform bids and also
to review the decision by the Fire Department as far as awarding it to the second low bid.
I would just like to state that I concur with their recommendation and would recommend
that the Commission approve the bid to the second low bidder. The Fire Chief is here to
present their rationale for selecting the second low bidder, and I would turn it over to Fire
Chief Gillespie to answer any questions.
Mr. Mayor: Chief?
Chief Gillespie: Mr. Mayor, Commissioners, thank you for this opportunity. We
just wanted to state that first of all, we request that you award this bid to the second low
bidder. The first low bidder did not meet bid specification for the bidding process as
outlined within the total bid package and brought forth in the pre-bid meeting. He did not
present copies of all of his items as was stated in the pre-bid meeting, only provided some
of the items. And the quality of his items did not meet the minimum specifications of the
bids as present.
Mr. Williams: I move we approve, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: That’s the recommendation to give the contract to --
Mr. Kolb: Command.
Mr. Mayor: Command. Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Kolb, Mr. Gillespie, you weren’t here, but it seems
to me like this comes up about every year. And my question to you -- and every time it
comes up it’s a controversy -- why do we keep receiving bids from somebody that’s not
going to meet the specifications? Maybe we can’t stop them from bidding but it seems
like it takes up a lot of time of the Commission. But as far as I know, this is the second
or third time that this same thing has happened.
Chief Gillespie: I would say that you’re probably correct. As long as they submit
a bid, we’re bound to look at it, even though at some point we should say they have not
met the specifications or filled this particular bid out. But it’s also something that we’re
looking at the in the fire service and how we do business in the future, and we may revise
our system in the future to help save some money in the Fire Department.
25
Mr. Kuhlke: It would just seem to me that if somebody comes in with a bid that
does not qualify for the specifications, that that bid ought to not even be received.
Mr. Kolb: Commissioner Kuhlke, you’re absolutely right, and that’s what
happens in this particular process. I think that in the past there have been attempts to try
and satisfy the vendors, especially if they raised objections to what they are -- what has
been requested. I think that over the years we have lost sight of the fact that we set the
specifications, we should determine which products we should buy. And that has been
dictated to, especially in this particular case, by vendors who think that we ought to take
what they have to offer, even though it may not meet our minimum specifications. I
think we have streamlined the process. We have developed a fair process for soliciting
specifications. In this particular case, there was a committee of fire fighters who actually
wrote the specifications, watched the process through, we had a pre-bid conference where
questions were answered. They also reviewed, compared to the specifications that they
developed, whether or not they met those specifications. And I believe that moving
forward on this should resolve the problem and answer the question who are we buying
products for?
Mr. Mayor: I think we have one of the vendors here who wants to speak. If
you’d just give us your name and address for the record.
Mr. Fishman: Steven Fishman with Sidney’s Department Store. I’m the low
bidder in this particular process. And I think I’m also the low responsible bidder in this
particular process. There are approximately 313 fire fighters. We came in at I thought at
around $62 low, which comes to around $39,000 low bid, if you multiply it out times the
313 fire fighters who receive uniforms. The question deals specifically with
specifications of certain garments. We did provide bids on every single item as specified
in the bid package. We also supplied other items for alternatives. These were
systematically thrown out in the bid process. One of the items was a sweater that was
shown to the Public Safety Committee which was a sweater that was thrown out by the
bid process. To show a sweater that the committee did not feel met specs and presented
us a sweater that was provided for on the bid is an error. This is an actual sweater. This
is a duplicate of the sweater that was provided by the other vendor. We can provide this.
This is an actual jacket. This jacket is the evolution of the [inaudible] jacket, stock
number 32170. If you look at the bid specs, the specs that were provided, these specs do
not match this particular jacket. It matches the item, but it does not have a [inaudible]
back. The jacket I provided as a sample was also a [inaudible] jacket, 32170, but it was
an earlier manufacturer. The committee decided they liked the newer manufacturer. If
we were to order jackets under the contract, we could not provide the old jacket if we
tried. We would have to provide a newer jacket. All of our items meet specifications.
All of the items that we would provide to this contract would be equal or better than
specifications required. The only basic difference between us providing this particular
contract and our competition providing this contract is the fact that we are $40,000
cheaper on the contract overall. Is the bid process flawed? Possibly. I think there has
been enough in the media about that over the last few months to say that there is a
problem here. The problem is not with Sidney’s Uniforms. We have provided fire
26
service contracts since the middle 60’s. Until six years ago, we provided the Augusta and
the Richmond County fire company contracts. We know what goods are required and we
can certainly supply those. The difference is we would save the city $40,000.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb, you’re shaking your head?
Mr. Kolb: I believe the Fire Chief ought to respond to the $40,000. Let me say
one other thing. At the time the bids were submitted, at the time the vendors were
requested to put in their wares what the opportunity for the selection to be made. I
believe it is inappropriate now to try and change that. An opportunity was fairly
presented to both vendors to display their wares. The Fire Department, the committee
charged with this, made the decision. I don’t believe, and I’ll let the Chief speak to it,
that there is a difference of $40,000 between the two bids based on the trend of our
purchasing within the Fire Department. And I’ll let him address that at this time if you so
desire.
Mr. Mayor: Chief?
Chief Gillespie: Thank you, Mr. Kolb. Yes, if you take the bottom line number
and multiply those out, 313 times the total amount of the uniforms in there, it will come
close to $40,000. You’re assuming by doing that that every single person in the Fire
Department will order every single size of every single product listed on the bid prospect.
That would be ridiculous because some of them are for males, some of them are for
females. It’s a very misleading figure. Having gone through those things, we’ve taken
the normal uniform that a brand new person would buy. If a normal person had to come
in and buy a dress uniform, the dress uniform difference between Command and Sidney’s
-- Command was high, $302.29; Sidney’s was $283.32, a difference of $18.97 per brand
new person that we get. Assuming we got 50 brand new people, it might come up to then
$900.00. Or maybe $1,000.00 if you [inaudible] difference. If you take the standard
work uniform that anybody else would be ordering throughout the general process, in
order to buy what we anticipate what they would want to buy, Command would be
$456.29; Sidney’s would be $421.96. However, we only have enough money in our
budget to support $303.00 for each person anyway. So there is no difference between the
two at that point.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard and then Mr. Williams.
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. If Mr. Fishman could respond to what I
heard the Chief say. He said that the low bidder, which you were, did not meet the
specifications. He said you did not present the copies of all items and the quality was not
of the same quality as the second low bidder. So if you could speak to those three things
specifically, I, for one, would appreciate it.
Mr. Fishman: Certainly. Number 1, when we present an alternate item, the
committee can reject it, but it does not mean that we did not submit the proper item.
Everything in that Command Uniforms -- well, 95% of what Command Uniforms
27
presents on this particular contract comes from [inaudible] Brothers. We are a major
vendor for [inaudible] Brothers in the area. Every single item as specified can be
provided by our company. The jacket, once before, the jacket as presented in the specs
has had an evolution. It is not the jacket that was actually presented in the specs, so we
presented a jacket as required by the specs. Remember, this is a competitive bid process.
If you do not meet the specs, you’re rejected. But it seems as if every time, the specs
seem to change a little bit when we get in the middle of this. And it becomes not a
competitive bid, it does not become an objective bid, it becomes a subjective bid. I do
not have a bit of a problem with what the Chief said as far as the money’s concerned.
But we are still the low responsible bidder in this particular issue, and we’re providing
the exact same items as required. Once again, if I provide [inaudible] products, there can
be no deviation from what Command can provide. And I have provided everything from
[inaudible] as required. There is an issue of a sweater that was thrown out, and then
presented as my bid. Once it’s thrown out, you can’t just bring it back in. This is a
sweater actually provided by Command. I did not have it that day. I had the sweater.
This sweater was being driven around by a UPS truck all over Augusta that. I even have
the packaging of when UPS delivered it late. But we would provide the exact same
items. This is a responsive, low bid situation, and we’re trying to save the city, once
again, money. I don’t know what else I can say, guys.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard? Anything further?
Mr. Shepard: Not at this time. I may want to make an additional comment.
Mr. Mayor: Okay. Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. This vendor had the opportunity to come
before us in Public Safety and we talked about the same identical thing. In fact, he was
able to demonstrate the material. The bid process has a time for what we’re going
through right now, has a time to bring the material in and ask those questions and meet
those things. I have been an advocate of the low bidder. But the low bidder that meets
the specification is what we’re looking at right now. There is a group from the Fire
Department who came in and presented, who looked over the merchandise and who I
think the Administrator designed the bid specs. Even they was in agreement with
meeting the specifications that came from the other vendor. Maybe next time when we
have a bid, since we had this trouble, that we will be able to come to the table early. We
bid all our material early and UPS won’t be riding all over North Augusta and Augusta
with that material, Mr. [inaudible], but I think we need to go ahead and call for the
question and let us vote for what we got on the floor right now because Mr. Kolb did
explain, we had time to go through this, this is the time for us to vote now. Next year, we
be back here at the same thing again. But I am going to call for the question, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Well, thank you, but we had a number of Commissioners who had
hands up, so let me get to those first. Mr. Bridges, then, Mr. Cheek, then Mr. Beard.
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, is there a motion on the floor?
28
Mr. Mayor: Yes, there is, and that’s to approve Command.
Mr. Bridges: Mr. Mayor, I’m like one of the previous Commissioners. This
seems to come up every year. And I’m no more educated on it now than I was the first
time it came up. It’s confusing every time. I think my position as Commissioner is not to
determine size, shape, cost, whether material is proper, that type of thing. I don’t think
this is the proper point to do that. I think it’s my responsibility to allow this process to go
through the proper procedure and channels, which it apparently has. If it’s done that and
our staff is recommending that, making their recommendation, then I think that if it’s
followed our channels and procedures that’s what we need to do. And so I’m going to
support the motion that’s on the floor and I think our people have apparently acted
responsibly. They had enough people to look at this and they’re bringing the
recommendation to us, and I think there is a time and a place to make your presentation,
and that’s during the process. I’m going to support the motion that’s on the floor.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek, then Mr. Beard.
Mr. Cheek: No comment, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: Just a couple of comments, Mr. Mayor. First of all, I want to
comment Sidney’s for their support for this government throughout the years. I’m saying
down through the years, he’s had most of the bids and [inaudible] those bids. However, I
feel there come a time when other people are at the plate, and as far as the specs are
concerned, this committee wrote the specs for this. This committee made the
recommendation. This committee -- and when I say this committee, it’s made up of the
fire service people -- they’re going to wear the uniforms and they’re going to be ones
who is out there performing in these uniforms. And I think it’s time now that we support,
we have to support our committee. I don’t think we can go in any other direction but
support that. And I don’t believe we do this every year, I think we do it every two years
or something of that nature. So it’s not every year that we’ve been bothered with this.
But we know the problems that we are going through in the past on this and I just think
it’s time -- I am going to call for the question at this time and we move forward on the
motion on the floor. And I will be supporting that motion.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you, Mr. Beard. We did have one more hand up who wanted
to speak. We’ll hear from Mr. Boyles and then we’ll go ahead and vote.
Mr. Beard: Okay.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. For many years, I stood exactly where Chief
Gillespie stands right now, to try to convince the Commission that what I wanted as
29
Recreation Director was what I thought the Commission should also want. I abstained in
committee because I didn’t quite -- the system has changed since I was here. I didn’t
realize that this was an all-or-nothing bid. All-or-nothing. Back when I was here, we
bid, bidded on, and were awarded, or did award separate items. It could be belts, it could
be shirts, it could be pants, it could be caps, it could be whatever else. If you’re bidding
on -- and I am just going to pick a number -- [inaudible] 1234 jacket, I mean that’s what
the bid says. If you bring in something else, that’s not what the bid says. That was my
reason for abstaining in committee. Now I don’t know that I totally agree with the
winner-take-all bid. That may be the new system that we’re under down here now. But I
did not ever see where, when I was in the Recreation business and we had Augusta
Sporting Goods, Georgia Sporting Goods, Johannsen Sporting Goods, and sometimes
Sidney’s bidding on items, that sometime the low price did not always correspond or
correlate with the other vendors. They were sometimes different. The item was the same
model number, the same stock number, it always worked. But in this case, and I’ll rest
my comments because this is, as I see, as it’s laid out to us, is an all-or-nothing bid. So I
thank you, Mr. Mayor. I just wanted to make those comments, because I know exactly,
I’ve stood where Chief Gillespie stands.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Thank you, Mr. Boyles. We’ve had the question called so
we’ll go ahead and vote on the motion to award the contract to Command. All in favor of
the motion, please vote aye.
Mr. Shepard votes No.
Mr. Boyles abstains.
Motion carries 7-1-1.
Chief Gillespie: Thank you, gentlemen.
Mr. Mayor: Thank you. Let’s go back and pick up these items we’ve passed
over, Madame Clerk. We’ll go to item number 36 on the consent agenda.
The Clerk:
36. Motion to approve execution of Local Governance Project Agreement
(LGPC) with the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) for the I-20
Widening Project from Belair Road to River Watch Parkway. (Approved by
Engineering Services Committee August 26, 2002)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard:
Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And I want the Commissioners and the
Department Heads to know that certainly I want to work with the Department of
Transportation. I’m in favor, I think as most of you know, of improving transportation
throughout this community of all modes. But one thing that does concern me with the
way the work was done in the Columbia County area, I think it was in the newspaper
recently, was not so much as dealing with the utilities but with the cutback of the trees
30
that occurred while this project was improved. And then you had neighbors -- and this is
not so much my District, Tommy, as it now goes, I think, entirely through yours. But I’m
concerned that when they come in and they have the relocation of the utilities, they have
the widening, that we talk to them about not cutting down so much of the growth along
the right-of-way as they did in Columbia County because you have the noise factor of
increased traffic, you have problems. I’m just trying to anticipate some problems here,
Mr. Mayor, and members of the Engineering Services Committee and members of the
Public Works staff and members of the Utilities staff, and I would hope that we would
not allow the DOT to just indiscriminately cut back the trees where we would then have
to erect noise walls and we’ve had to do in certain parts of the community and where it’s
I’d move for
needed in certain areas of the community along Bobby Jones. With that,
approval of that but I think we should work with the DOT in trying to eliminate as
many problem that are going to occur with this needed improvement and minimize
those problems.
Mr. Bridges: Second.
Mr. Mayor: We have a second to that motion. Did you want to be heard, Ms.
Smith?
Ms. Smith: Yes, if I could. I just want to point out to the Commission that the
concern that Commissioner Shepard has raised will actually be moot by the time this
project gets done. This widening work is being done to the inside grass area along I-20.
The Georgia Department of Transportation actually has a project that will be starting later
this year that will take those trees that you’re concerned about along the edges of I-20
similar to what they did [inaudible] in Columbia County. So this is something we may
actually need to add to our DOT breakfast agenda if indeed we want to have some action
taken on it, because it won’t be done, it won’t be done by the time this project comes
along.
Mr. Shepard: Well, I appreciate -- Mr. Mayor. I appreciate you telling me that,
Ms. Smith, because I see in some areas in Columbia County they’ve cut behind where
they had guard rails and then they say we’re doing this for safety. Well, I think the guard
rails is going to stop the cars that may be running off and the tractor-trailers that may be
running off the travel lanes, but if you could remember to bring that to our attention, I
want to follow it, because I think they have created more problems and they didn’t need
to create, and they’re having people that live in homes that have made substantial
investments in those homes, they happen to be neighbors of the highway, and they are
there causing problems. So you’ve created a problem. So then they say we’ll spend
more money and build noise walls. And that just -- you already have a perfect noise wall
here and I’m glad they’re going to be widening in the center, Mr. Mayor, but I just
wanted to make sure that we hole them accountable -- to use the word of my friend,
Commissioner Williams -- to the quality of life of the folks that happen to reside and
have their businesses right beside the interstates.
Mr. Mayor: Anything further?
31
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, I want to ask Ms. Smith. They are going to widen to the
inside?
Ms. Smith: Yes, sir.
Mr. Kuhlke: How do you get past those bridge abutments which are right in the
middle of the road?
Ms. Smith: They’re going to --
Mr. Kuhlke: Change those?
Ms. Smith: Yes, sir.
Mr. Kuhlke: Good.
Ms. Smith: They’re going to put lanes in the middle. And raise I-20 about five
feet in some areas.
Mr. Mayor: Do we have a motion?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: We have a motion. All in favor of that motion, please vote aye.
Mr. Bridges out.
Motion carries 8-0.
Mr. Mayor: Next is item number 39.
The Clerk:
39. Motion to approve Amendment No. 5 to existing Program Management
Services Contract with CH2MHill, Inc. to provide Program Management Services
for the 2002 Series Bond Capital Improvements Program at a cost not to exceed
$6,796,000. (Approved by Engineering Services Committee August 26, 2002)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek:
Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I first want to say that I’ve been very, very
proud of CH2MHILL’s efforts in managing our bonds for our utilities. One of the things
I wanted to comment on, and with our new Public Information Officer and many of the
wonderful things working for us, there still exists a void where there is not enough
information out to the public about where their rate increases and their water bills are
I’d like to make a motion to
going to, what’s being built, what’s planned and so forth.
32
approve this but that in addition to that that working with our Administrator and
Public Information Officer that we create an infomercial with Channel 66 to where
we can provide information to the public of what’s being done with their revenues
being generated by this bond and air that several times and perhaps have several
public meetings.
I know in the Tobacco Road corridor, we are way deficient in
information on these many, many sewer projects that are coming on line. But I’d like to
make that in the form of a motion up to the motion. The rest of it’s just information.
Mr. Colclough: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Motion and second. And for the Commissioners’ information, I’ve
already been in communication with the Administrator’s office to set up a series of public
meetings in September to go over water and sewer, those projects that we have underway.
Mr. Kolb?
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, to go along with what he’s
saying, would it be acceptable to you if we could tape those meetings with Channel 26
[sic] and possibly air those? Channel 66. Comcast. So that we could air it at later dates
if at all possible. Would you want to do a separate production?
Mr. Cheek: I have no ownership in where, how, when or whatever as long as we
get the word out there. I might add at this point that Comcast, being the great community
supporter that they are, is the only cable network in the city covering our meetings.
Mr. Kolb: I should also add they were in the process of looking at newsletters to
be inserts in our utility bills which will also tell about the program.
Mr. Cheek: More information is better.
Mr. Mayor: Anything further? Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Yes, sir, I just need some clarification on this thing on item 39.
This amendment to extend this program, this program management, from 2002, that
would last until how long? I mean --
Mr. Hicks: The funds under this bond issue are five year funds, so this would
normally last until -- 2002 until 2007 would be covered by this bond issue.
Mr. Mayor: Or until the projects get completed?
Mr. Hicks: Or until they get completed. If they get completed before 2007, then
it would be at an end when those are completed.
Mr. Williams: Okay. I just needed some clarification, Max. I understand.
33
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Just one comment. They’re all ahead of schedule and under budget;
is that right?
Mr. Hicks: I know they’re ahead of schedule. I would hope they’re all under
budget.
Mr. Mayor: All in favor of the motion, please vote aye.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: The next item is 48.
The Clerk:
ADMINISTRATOR:
48. Discuss Commission’s Retreat scheduled for September 12 & 13, 2002.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kolb?
Mr. Kolb: Mr. Mayor, members of the Commission, we have scheduled a two-
day retreat for September 12 and 13 to really go over and try to do some strategic
planning for community visioning, for a work plan for the next year to five years, to
really try and bring to closure some of these issues that we still have questions about.
We’re entitling that retreat Achieving Excellence in Local Government. There will be
processes hopefully developed along with other issues. It has come to my attention that
there will be several absences, either for both does or for one or the other days, and
Commissioners, specifically Commissioner Kuhlke, have approached me and said that
we probably ought to consider canceling that and rescheduling maybe away from
Augusta, perhaps -- the University of Georgia is the facilitator, perhaps going to Athens
on their campus for a couple of days as a captive audience and going through a facilitated
retreat. So I have brought that to you for your consideration and decision.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke:
Mr. Mayor and fellow Commissioners, the reason I approached Mr.
Kolb is that we tried this thing, but if everybody is not involved, we just don’t seem to
make very much progress, and I felt like since we are going to use the University of
Georgia people anyway, that this might be the best approach for us to really get some
I would like to make a motion
things accomplished going into next year. So with that,
that we ask the Administrator to see if a couple of dates would be available --
-- no later than the end
George, I think you wanted to try to do it by the end of October
of October.
34
Mr. Kolb: Yes. I believe the schedule calls for us submitting a budget to you
th
around the 15. We could do it at end of October. I would not want the budget to be the
specific subject of the retreat, but at that point in time you could get an overview of it and
make some global-type decisions as to what you want to develop for your annual budget
next year. Or at least a work place.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard, you had your hand up?
Mr. Beard: Yes.
Mr. Mayor: Go ahead.
Mr. Beard: I agree with one thing that Bill is stating, that if we can’t get most of
our people there at the specific time, I don’t think it’s worth the effort of doing this at this
time. I don’t have a problem -- we’ve talked about the University of Georgia, going to
Athens for that. I don’t have a problem with that. The only thing I will add is I think we
ought to try to do it on the weekend. And George, I don’t know if we can get a Saturday
and Sunday or a Friday and Saturday or whatever, but I think that should be given some
consideration because you have a lot of people who cannot take off during the week for a
couple of days, like some of us can up here who are not working. I think it would be
good that if we can get at least 90%, 95%, 98% of participants there in order for it to be
effective.
Mr. Kolb: Some of you also work on Sundays.
Mr. Beard: They can get away on Sundays.
Mr. Mayor: Visiting clergy. I think it’s a consensus up here, Mr. Kolb. I don’t
think there is anything for us to vote on here. I think there is a clear reading up here, Mr.
Kolb, that September 12 and 13 will not work. That’s the sense I’m getting up here, and
we’re looking for something later in October.
Mr. Shepard: Maybe if we’re going to Athens, not only would we have the
benefit of potential football on the weekend, but perhaps we could see some of the ideas
that the consolidated government has there, such as the hospitality committee.
Mr. Kolb: Would you consider a three-day retreat?
Mr. Mayor: After November 5.
(Laughter)
Mr. Mayor: I can only speak for myself. Okay, item number 49.
The Clerk:
35
PETITIONS & COMMUNICATIONS:
49. Select voting delegation for National League of Cities Conference 2002.
Mr. Mayor: Do we have someone going?
The Clerk: Mr. Beard, Mr. Shepard, Mr. Boyles.
Mr. Shepard: I’m the ACCG Delegate already. I’ll nominate Mr. Boyles.
Mr. Williams: I’ll second that.
Mr. Boyles: When is that?
The Clerk: November. To Utah.
Mr. Beard: December.
Mr. Boyles: No, I’m not going. I have a schedule conflict.
Mr. Beard: It’s December, though.
Mr. Kuhlke: Who is going?
Mr. Beard: I’m going.
Mr. Kuhlke: I nominate Mr. Beard.
Mr. Colclough: I’ll second that.
Mr. Mayor: Any other nominations? Mr. Beard, you’re elected by acclamation.
Item number 50.
The Clerk:
OTHER BUSINESS:
50. Discuss Coliseum Authority. (Requested by Commissioner Bobby
Hankerson)
The Clerk: Commissioner Hankerson may have at your places -- he submitted
some communication and asked that I pass that along to you regarding this agenda item.
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke?
36
Mr. Kuhlke: Ms. Bonner, this communication, is it from Mr. Scott from the
Coliseum Authority?
The Clerk: No. Commissioner Hankerson asked -- I don’t know if he provided it
but he sent it to me and ask that it be provided to you. To the Commission. Yes, sir,
that’s the communication.
Mr. Kuhlke: From Mr. Scott?
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Kuhlke: Could I ask Mr. Boyles, isn’t this one of the items that would be on
the -- on his and Mr. Beard’s committee?
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Kuhlke, it is not. We did not place it on it. We left, we left a
time frame there before the Legislature goes in session. I think, Mr. Beard, I’m correct in
saying that. We left some space there, left some time there to see what will happen. It is
not one of the six that we had put on. We’re going to meet on September 20 with the
members of the Delegation, our committee.
Mr. Kuhlke: Could I then, Mr. Mayor, ask that that be added to your committee?
Who is Chairman?
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Beard is chairman.
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Beard, could I ask that that be added to y’all’s agenda?
th
Mr. Beard: Which agenda? The 20?
Mr. Kuhlke: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: It’s item 51 I guess you’re referring to.
Mr. Beard: We’re presenting the six items to the body here and we’re asking that
you, you know, either concur with that or what you want to do with that.
Mr. Kuhlke: I want to add to it. I want to add number 7.
Mr. Mayor: That’s the next item, when we get to it.
Mr. Kuhlke: What do we want to do?
Mr. Mayor: You just want to receive this as information, that Rev. Hankerson
left? Mr. Mays?
37
Mr. Mays:
Mr. Mayor, if I might, and I’d like to offer a friendly motion. They
can either go up as late as when Mr. Beard’s committee is or even preferably earlier. I try
to make this real brief, and I hope the motion will be friendly and the maker of it will be
more than happy to receive friendly amendments to it. In the past, when we’ve had,
whether they be real or whether they be perceived, differences that have occurred within
a body or where there may be difference with this Commission, we have been able to call
certain entities, and I don’t like to use the word call on the carpet, but call people in to
have discussion. Because there is a lot of things going on, not only at the Coliseum
Authority, and I think you’ve had very capable people over there over the years. But
right now there is a lot that is being discussed. And quite frankly, one of the two
Commissioners on this board, myself and Mr. Kuhlke, we don’t have an appointment to
that board that’s over there. And my motion is definitely not seeking that, either. But
what I’m looking at is that when the Airport Commission, there were differences there,
we met at the Boathouse, we talked in open meetings session, we got a lot of things on
the table and found out that probably we had more perception than there were real
differences. We met at the Boathouse again, because the Boathouse is kind of the
common denominator -- that’s why it’s going to be in my motion. But we met with
members of the judiciary, the District Attorney, the judges, the Sheriff, the Solicitor and
others. Whatever differences that may need to be included in the Judicial Center. And
we talked. Right now it’s a lot that’s going on in discussion form about where the
Coliseum Authority is going, what its future is going to be, whether it is going to
abolished. The Delegation can do some things, I realize, out of its session. But I think
what we ought to do, at least from a point, I would like if nothing else, from one
Commissioner, from an information standpoint, and since the body has had several
, I would like to see us as the
meetings whereby they have not been able to get a quorum
leading body, since we’ve got eight members to be appointed to the existing
Coliseum Authority, call a particular meeting at a location such as the Boathouse,
informal setting but open meeting there so that we can discuss some things and
particularly because this is an investment where millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money
has gone into. And regardless of what takes place down the road, whether it’s a new
arena or whether it’s the same one, whatever it might be -- I think folks’ jobs hang in the
balance, I think questions need to be answered about the operations of it, and maybe by
us putting them in a room, we can then provide the type of leadership that will force them
to call a meeting that they will come to, even if it’s for the express purpose -- if it’s
getting off the board. But they definitely need to meet, because there is ongoing business
that has to be decided about the Coliseum Authority. And I think these are our citizens
that we collectively, with the Delegation, have put on board, and I just would like to see
us maybe do that, and I’m receptive to a date and time. I think the sooner the better. If
th
But
it’s up as far as the 20, then that’s fine, if that’s the consensus of this Commission.
I was hoping maybe something over the course of the next five to six days
to allow
this entity to come before us and then just frankly tell them, you know, we do expect
them to meet, but find out at the same time what some of the serious concerns are that are
going on. Quite frankly, I don’t really know. And I would say it would be easier for us
to go over and attend a meeting, but if the meetings aren’t being attended by the board
members, then there are no meetings. So then I think we have to step in and say -- we
appointed eight folk -- say let us call a meeting in that type of setting, just as we’ve done
38
Mr.
with other board that we have in this city. And I’m receptive to any amendments.
Mayor, I make that in the form of a motion as we do that as the leading appointing
body of that Board and hopefully that the Delegation, that we send them the
message, too, that they will join in with us, asking their members to be present at
such a meeting.
Mr. Boyles: I’ll second that, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: All right. Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: I agree with Mr. Mays, but I would like to add as an amendment that
Mr. Beard add to the committee discussion on the Coliseum Authority with the
Legislative Delegation.
Mr. Beard: That is 51, Mr. Kuhlke. We’re going to discuss that in a few minutes
if you will hold that until that time.
Mr. Mayor: The next item.
Mr. Kuhlke: Remind me.
(Laughter)
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Mr. Mayor, I spoke at length last night with Commissioner
Hankerson trying to determine which direction he wanted to go, and he told me that this
information would be given to Ms. Bonner today. I think what Mr. Mays has probably
summed up, where Rev. Hankerson was saying, that there are some operational concerns
over there, such as broken valves and you can’t make ice for the ice floor and things like
this and things that have to be confirmed. So I think that’s more so what Rev. Hankerson
had in mind with that. There are some problems. I think as Mr. Mays said, I think time
is of the essence that we sit down with the members of the Authority, and as I understand
you have done with other bodies before that this Commission directs. I believe that was
the direction that Rev. Hankerson wanted to go with comments on this particular item.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: I just want to ask Mr. Mays -- I agree with him that this should be
within the next five days, but I’m wondering, are we instructing the Clerk to get this letter
-- how are you going to do this?
Mr. Mays: My reason for saying over the course of the next five days, I realize
next week we get into other events, and particularly surrounding September 11. What I
th
thought about previously, I didn’t know where the vote was going to go, on the 12 and
th
13 of Mr. Kolb’s retreat. So therefore I kind of, not having a made-up mind, but I was
39
looking at five days to a point that if we could get something out of the way prior to next
week. And that was the only thought I had on that. I was thinking maybe that if the
Clerk in terms of polling this Commission for the convenience of a date, it would do two
things. It would give us two to three days to maybe be able that possibly a majority of
this Commission could meet, and at the same time, allow enough time for public notice
that there is being an open meeting, you know, to be held at that location. And so that’s
why I was hoping that we could do that within that framework of the five days. I think as
a backdrop, I don’t know what will be decided on the next agenda item, but I think it
probably covers it two ways. That if it can’t be done -- but I’d like to see out of this
motion hopefully that that could be done earlier so that it would not interfere with things
that we have going on the next week, that we can put our attention to doing this, and then
th
even if it’s on the agenda for the 20 to be discussed, it will have given us some time as
this Commission to sit down and have some dialog with that body. And that’s why I was
looking to something in the course of the five days, but not locked to a particular day.
Mr. Mayor: Anything further? We have a motion on the floor. All in favor of
the motion, please vote aye.
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: Next it item 51, Madame Clerk.
The Clerk:
51. Discuss/approve Commission’s 2003 Legislative Issues and Agenda.
Mr. Mayor: Let’s go to Mr. Beard first. He chairs the committee and then we’ll
get Mr. Kuhlke included in the discussion.
Mr. Beard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. There were three people who were involved
in this, Commissioner Boyles and Commissioner Cheek and myself, and we were asked
to represent you in this matter. When we met with the Delegation, the Legislative
Delegation, the decision was made that the priorities and the agenda that we sent in the
past would not really work. That they needed time to really look over this. And to
eliminate this to five items that we would present to them, and we would have the
Attorney draw up a form Bill, if this is approved today, for those five. We did add a sixth
item because -- we added that sixth item because of the Museum, and we went through
this earlier today because of the Museums we have here. We know they need funding.
And so we thought we would add that as a sixth item. We were really stretching it with
the six items because we have been told in order to facilitate this and to move it forward,
as we get to Atlanta, that we would need it in this form and this is why we did this. So
what we did, the process was that we had asked all of you to submit your ideas and things
that you wanted to see working with the General Assembly in 2003, to submit them to us.
We went through those items, got the frequency there, those that appearing more, and we
got them down to five items. We added the sixth one because of the Museums situation,
which existed today and trying to find funds. We thought if we could get some funds
40
from that source, it would be better and maybe help us out in our budgetary process. We
so did that and we came up with the five items that appeared more frequently in what you
had given to us, and then we made that decision. Those items are listed in your book.
I’m sure you’ve seen them. Now in reference to what Commissioner Kuhlke is saying, I
really don’t have a big problem with that other than I think if we going to go through with
the motion that was just made on the floor a few minutes ago, then we ought to look at
this, and if nothing comes from this meeting within the next few days, that we are going
to ask the Coliseum Authority to get there and do, then we have ample to put this on the
th
agenda, and I think it should go on the agenda on the 20 if nothing comes of this
meeting. But if this, if this is, if it’s a workable thing in the next few days when we get
this body together, and get all three bodies together, I think what we had in mind here
was you’re going to have the Legislative Delegation there, you’re going to have
Commissioners there, and you’re going to have the Authority there, and if we can’t work
out something at that meeting, then I think we do need to discuss it with the Delegation
from the General Assembly, but I see no need now, Bill, to really add that at this point in
time when we are trying to work with them on something. We ought to wait and see
th
what it’s going to work out. We still have time to present this on the 20 if it doesn’t
work out.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke, before I recognize you, let me remind Mr. Beard and the
others who were in that meeting that Sen. Cheeks, who is the Chairman of that joint
committee, said that the Coliseum Authority would come up and be discussed at the next
meeting. That was independent of the list that was put together by this Commission. It
would be up for discussion.
Mr. Beard: Well, you know, that’s one person speaking, as far as that is
concerned. There is a whole committee there to speak for this. I have no problem with it
coming up for discussion, but my point was that, you know, why should we do it now
when we are trying to get these people together in a couple of days to sit down at the
table and talk and move forward?
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Beard, the only reason I want to add it to this is that I’m all in
favor of sitting down with the Coliseum Authority. But I, you know, from my standpoint
as a Commissioner, and I didn’t write anything because last year was a waste of time to
write anything, I know that it was on one recommendation that the Coliseum Authority
be put on that list, and it wasn’t put there. But in the event nothing does happen before
th
that meeting on the 20, I’d like to see this on the list so that it can be discussed. We all
know that if we can’t make some progress sitting down with the Coliseum Authority, that
we are going to continue to have problems over there. And if we do, it’s something that’s
got to be dealt with, whether it’s the abolishing of the Coliseum Authority or whatever
other action is taken. So all I’m asking you as a Commissioner is I would like to see this
added to your list so that I know it’s on there on September 20 when you sit down with
the delegation. If we get everything worked out, pull it off, but I want it on there.
41
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams? Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: Well, I was just going to tell Bill I thought we, my point again, I
thought we had enough time and the other point was they had asked us for five items, and
we were trying to adhere to what they were saying. These items would be drawn up in a
form that could be presented as Bill form by our Attorney and I guess I have reservations,
Bill, the only thing is that if nothing is worked out in the next few days, I’m sure that
there will be some discussion on this as members of that committee would probably
move forward on that. At this time, I’m just wondering are we just talking about
discussing it or are we presenting it as we are presenting the others to do something with
this? Because these things are going to be drawn up in a bill form and I’m just
wondering what do you want on that bill form?
th
Mr. Kuhlke: If you are going to do a bill form on every one of these for the 20,
I’d like to have a bill written that abolishes the Coliseum Authority for them to take a
look at.
Mr. Beard: That’s what I thought you were getting at, and that, at this point in
time, I just don’t see it being done until we give them an opportunity to work together.
Mr. Kuhlke: I think, Mr. Beard, to me that’s one of the most serious problems
we’ve got in this community right now. And for us to overlook that and not have that on
this list is terrible.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. In hearing the discussion, and I
remember that at one meeting that I attended, the Delegation have said that in order to
change anything at all, they would have to do a bill to take back to the people. Is that
right, Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: To change anything about what?
Mr. Williams: About the structure of the government as we got it now.
Mr. Mayor: Anything to change the structure of the government, it was clear that
they wanted that in the form of a referendum.
Mr. Williams: Okay. And Senator Cheeks explained to us that it would have to
go back before the people. I’ve got no problems hearing that discussed and bringing that
to them after we met with the Coliseum Authority. I think each of us that has an
appointment on that board should be able to talk to those people that we got appointed
and explain to them how important the job is and how, as Commissioner Kuhlke has said,
that it’s something that’s really being a hindrance to this city, not a help. And if they are
not willing to do that job, then we as Commissioners need to step forward again and be
accountable and put somebody there who is going to do it. I think we got a workable
42
solution here with meeting with them and let them know we didn’t put them there just to
be there. If they don’t want the responsibility, if they are not willing to accept the
responsibility of coming and meeting and doing the work, then there are some people that
will do it. I just think we as Commissioners need to address and talk to our appointee, and
maybe if they are not willing to change it, if they are not showing up, if they are not
doing what we asked them to do, there are a lot of people that care about this community
that’s willing to come in and do it. So we’re not locked in with someone who has got to
be there for a certain term. It’s up to us as Commissioners to stand forth and stand
behind those people that supposed to be representing us and speaking for the people of
this community.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek, and then Mr. Shepard.
Mr. Cheek: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I am equally concerned as Commissioner
Kuhlke, and I’m sure all of us are with the lack of performance, assuming lack of
performance of the Coliseum Authority. Four months ago, my representative made me
aware of the fact that he asked the then attorney about operating guidelines, rules of order
and so forth, and was told then there were none. This board probably is in bad need of
probably just being refocused on its task, given a vision or at least a set of expectations
from us and the Legislative Delegation of what we expect them to do. One being work
together. Two, to at least make this thing as close to profitable as possible. And three,
attract as many businesses and other attractions to this area as possible. The good news is
as late as yesterday, in talking with my representative, which I do on a weekly basis and I
don’t have to wait for a crisis to arise to become alarmed over what’s going on, is the fact
that there is discussion and dialog going on between the two factions, if you will, and that
there is hope on the horizon that they will begin to work together again. This body sat
here for a number of years after being promised to have regular financial reports and
completely neglected to call people on the carpet a couple of years ago when we didn’t
get them as we were promised. Item after item. And if you walk in the Civic Center, you
know it’s just like the rest of the city, there’s really no preventative maintenance program
in place. There is no capital improvement in place to speak of. The same problems exist
in the coliseum that exist in the rest of the government and we can step up and want to
correct the Coliseum Authority and get them straight, which I think some straightening
out needs to occur, but these are problems that we have, that we’re trying to correct with
our government. I’d like to see us to at least have dialog with the Legislative Delegation
on this. After all, we have only the power to suggest. We do not have the power to make
the changes to the Legislation that governs the Coliseum Authority. But some dialog
needs to occur. But I would think that us being in the spotlight like we are would like the
benefit of having the opportunity to talk with the people that we represent or represent us
before we start throwing nooses over tree limbs and hanging people. I think it’s time to
start some dialog and working together, and I think this meeting that Commissioner Mays
has talked about is certainly the first step we ought to take. I think a lot of the problems
that we see, and I think we all know that some problems, be they small, can be converted
to large overnight, just the way they’re presented to the public. But we’ve got a broken
coliseum right now that needs to be fixed, and the first step to solving these problems is
this soon, if not immediate, meeting that Commissioner Mays is talking about, and then if
43
that doesn’t work, then we seek Legislative changes to the Coliseum Authority. But
gentlemen, I want to tell you, I get regular reports from my folks over there. If you don’t
get regular reports, it’s time for you to replace who you’ve got over there. This is not
new to me. And if it’s new to you, then you need somebody else sitting in your seat.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Shepard?
Mr. Shepard: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I want to thank Mr. Beard and his
committee for their work to this point, getting the draft together on the issues, the seven
that are included, the six that are included now because I think we’ve seen problems in
just about each one of these areas -- public safety, 9-1-1. I know how much time we’ve
spent on a evictions and how we need some statutory changes to help clean up this city in
the area of evictions. We’ve been talking about the impact of the decision of the United
States Supreme Court in Alabama versus Shelton in Finance Committee and in Public
Safety Committee, and we need some statewide action to help address the costs of
increased indigent defense. I know that when we did the budget last year we ran into the
changes in the insurance premium tax and how Augusta’s lack of growth versus the high-
growth areas around Atlanta have taken from us in terms of the revenue we get out of the
insurance premium tax. And we’ve just been talking today -- I mean the last issue here is
as current as today’s discussion about the Museum of History and the Laney Museum,
and as well I think the Georgia Golf Hall of Fame. It’s time we got off the dime on the
Georgia Golf Hall of Fame. I know people that come here and they stand with their
camera and that take pictures of the entrance to Magnolia Lane from Washington Road.
And you can’t get the souvenirs from the National from the pro shop delivered to the
gates any longer. We really need to tap into the golf strength that we have for one week a
year here. We have an internationally-recognized sporting event. What community
really in Georgia can claim credit to that, coming year after year after year? And we
certainly can. And I just think we need to play to our strengths. But it appears that two
more issues are out here. Number 1, is the next one on the agenda, which is the state
funding for mosquito control. And we’ve taken this seriously. We’ve been listening to
our Board of Health and Commissioner Cheek on this. I think that should be added as a
seventh item, and I also think the discussion of the Coliseum Authority and its status
should be added, with an alternative bill presented, to abolish that Authority.
52. Resolution regarding solicitation of state funding for a Mosquito Control
Program.
Mr. Shepard: I would make that in the form of a motion that we approve
Items 1 through 6 on the draft and that we also include in the approval the
resolution on the West Nile virus and we also include discussion of the Coliseum
Authority with the next meeting of the joint committee, the joint committee being
the City body and the representatives and the legislators, and that one alternative be
presented to them, that it not necessarily be the exclusive alternative, but one
alternative be presented for the abolishment of the Coliseum Authority.
Mr. Cheek: Second.
44
Mr. Mayor: Second to that motion. Just a point of clarification. Under item 2 on
this list, there are actually two separate items there -- sales tax for public safety within
consolidated government, but the second paragraph is local option sales tax for public
transportation, a tax on gasoline. Was that meant to be included there, or is that indeed a
separate item?
Mr. Kolb: [inaudible] really three proposals [inaudible], a sales tax on gasoline.
This would [inaudible]. [inaudible]
Mr. Mayor: Just my impression from being in the meeting, and Mr. Beard,
correct me if I’m wrong, please, but the Delegation really wanted us to refine our list
down to just a handful of specific items, and what we’re ending up here, if we’re
including multiple items in these, that we’re going back to what we did last year and give
them a big list that we never got any action on.
Mr. Kolb: I don’t believe that you’re going to come up with a list in one meeting.
I believe that it’s going to take some talking and determining what is the best mix of
programs that can be selected for your legislation. Unless you put down the ideas that
can be kicked around and talked about, you really are not going to get there.
Mr. Mayor: I just, I get concerned when I look at a document that’s going to
come out of Commission that asks for a new tax here and a new tax there. People around
here are taxed up. We don’t need more taxes. That’s all we’re asking for. We call it
revenue enhancement, but what we’re doing is taxing people. Coming up with new taxes
for them. And we’re trying to use the status as a consolidated government instead of a
way to focus on ways to reduce and streamline spending, we’re looking at a way to
collect more taxes. That’s an insult to me. Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, we know we’re going to have to run this government and
the only way that we’re going to run is going to have to increase our revenues. And this
was one of the thoughts that was brought by our Administrator and other members of the
committee that would be a method of increasing our revenues, and I think that’s what we
are going to have to do here. The other thing, I’m going to make a substitute motion in
this that -- before I make that motion, I want to clarify something else. The idea was, and
what the committee actually asked us to do was to deal with possibly five items. And
they stated this specifically. And I think at one time, if we are going to work with the
Delegation, we ought to try to work within the confines of they want and what we can be
assisting with them in helping them out. So what we have here is we have refined it to
six. And we are going to bring it to you so you can make the changes. But I think that
we ought to keep it within the five. If we are going to make some changes, then make
some changes, but keep it within the five or six items that they have requested. We were
going to ask the Attorney to deal with this and sit down and work this out in some type of
form that it could be presented as they had commanded us to do. So I’m going to move
in a substitute motion that we authorize the Attorney to submit the six items to the
45
Delegation as per their request so that they can start working on this and dealing with this
at that particular time. That is my motion at this time.
Mr. Williams: Second.
Mr. Mayor: I’d like to make a comment on the original motion, because I think
it’s important that the Coliseum Authority is included in this. If you read this memo from
the Chairman over there, you know, part of his solution to fixing the Coliseum Authority
is to give away free hot dogs. But the problem at the Coliseum Authority is right here.
This is in the Methodist newspaper that goes out to Methodists all around this state.
Problems in Augusta force North Georgia to move. We’re not going to solve anything in
a meeting at the Boathouse. You know, we can have a meeting, but the thing is you’ve
got to hold something over their head to get some action. And to tell the Delegation that
we’re interested in abolishing the Coliseum Authority I think is a pretty big hammer to
take with you to that meeting at the Boathouse, and maybe you’ll get some attention and
you’ll get something more than hot dog giveaways at the Civic Center and solve the
problems over there. Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor, let me, if I might, make two comments. One is on the
clarification of at least where this Commissioner stands. And I think since it went last
year and it was not addressed by the General Assembly, my making the comment won’t
hurt it because I imagine there will be a lot of talk done with it if it’s done, and
particularly with Columbus Muscogee and Athens Clarke. I think we ought to, when we
discuss the situation about tax, and I only state my position on this, is that my position
and even though mine was a broader-based statement and I’m willing to live with what’s
on here because the General Assembly, at least the Delegation was trying to narrow this
down, was that I have not -- and I probably put this out for discussion about eight or nine
different times -- mine is not aimed at dealing with any new or additional tax. Where this
Commissioner is coming from is in dealing with the scope of the taxes that we already
collect, that is a redefining of what uses can be done that are currently not being done
now under Georgia law. Even if it means dealing with them in the consolidated
governments through bill and/or referendum. So there is a big difference in when we
state about the flexibility and the use of tax than when we make the statement about an
increase in tax. So I want to clear that from the Super District 9 Commissioner’s
standpoint. That’s never been on my radar screen, is not now, so if anybody, any one of
us misinterprets where I’m coming from with it, I want to set it straight again for now the
th
10 time that I’ve brought this before the Commission floor. The second thing is that I
think that’s a pendulum that swings both ways, Mr. Mayor, in reference to the Coliseum
Authority. I think we can sit back and we can provide the leadership by saying, you
know, we turn around and we squash it, we abandon it. I really don’t know everything
that they do and I don’t have a representative to call upon. I had been interested in going
to one or two of their meetings lately, but as I said in my motion, I’m glad you all passed
it before you got to this discussion, and I hope that this will not hurt that motion by
Commissioners maybe declining to come to a meeting and dealing with it at the
Boathouse. When you, I think when you send out to ordinary citizens -- and we may end
up getting to what you’re talking about, doing the same thing -- but I think when you
46
send a message and you telegraph it that you want to abolish something, you want to
abandon it, and you have nothing in place to deal with it, and you’ve got a government,
you’ve got an entity there that we’ve dumped millions of dollars in, good, bad or
indifferent, that’s still got to run, I think it says to those folk that you want to meet with
that we aren’t really interested in hearing you as a body of what you may want to do. In
other words, we’re saying basically to hell with you. You know, if you are going to call a
meeting and ask somebody to come to it for discussion and input, then I think if nothing
develops out of it, then that’s the time, if you want to use that hammer, that you use it.
th
But to turn around and say you’re going to abolish it, put it on an agenda for the 20 and
thth
ask some people to show up for the 6 or 7, I wouldn’t show up, either. I wouldn’t even
come. Because the basic intent, what you’re basically saying, is you are going to abolish
me. So you may have members there who feel they are doing their able best and are not
caught up in anybody’s political agenda or campaign to do anything else in 2002. They
just want to do a good job. And I think we deserve to at least hear them out. We didn’t
abolish the Aviation Commission and put it under the city when there were problems on
it. We changed Directors out there. But basically, the board stayed pretty much intact
for what it was. We thought that we had people that we had paid as a group to come in
and put things together for a Judicial Center, when we found out when we met there at
the Boathouse, so I think at least two of the proposed three meetings have already been
good. I say do three out of three. It’s not going to hurt us and then if they act like non-
adults when they come to the meeting and nothing can resolved, then I think that’s the
time that you do it. But I think at least to hear from them, hear what their functions are,
hear what their operations are, hear what their problems are, to a point that whether
you’ve got this Commission, another one, or whether you abolish it, you’re not fixing to
get a $50 million arena next year built by anybody. You’re going to have to live with
what you’ve got and you need to try and work with it at least under some group of folk
and bringing them together, I think, in discussion by putting a hammer over their head
before you meet with them is not the course and it’s not providing the leadership that you
ought to be doing.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Boyles?
Mr. Boyles: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I think we keep bouncing back between the
Coliseum Authority and our Legislative issues. I sat with Mr. Beard last Friday and I
don’t remember any discussion about increased taxes coming up. We did talk about the
Legislature should allow a local option sales tax for motor fuel products, but we said that
this would be a support item for us because GMA and ACCG are going to carry the ball
on this one anyway. They did last year and it didn’t pass, but they are going to try it
again. We talked about redirecting some of the sales tax that we currently collect as a
way of helping out with our public safety departments, and the thing that bothers all of
us, or should concern us all as a community, I pay insurance premium tax on my house
and it goes to Atlanta and it’s give out to Cobb, DeKalb, Fulton, other counties, and we
lost $1.1 million last year, so we’ve got to find a way to come back and do that. I do not
see any way at all where we had talked about raising taxes at all in this proposal.
Mr. Mayor: Anything further? Mr. Shepard?
47
Mr. Shepard: Mr. Mayor, I just we’ve got to show leadership and respond to
things that have happened in the last year. We’ve got to respond to the Twin Towers
bombing, the Pentagon bombing with additional law enforcement. We’ve got to figure
out a way to fund that. We’ve increased taxes this year to fund public safety. We just
can’t pretend the West Nile virus is not out there. This is a serious public health
situation. We’ve been handed down the opinion in Alabama versus Shelton and we’ve
had Judge Hamrick up here and we’ve had Jack Long up here. We just can’t ignore that.
These problems have all been brought to us. The evictions -- we spent a lot of time.
Evictions is one particular one that stands out in my minds that was a nasty scene out
there, that I think was in District 2. And we’ve had problems all over the city with trying
to clean it up. Commissioner Boyles is right. We’ve lost $1.1 million in the budget due
to the insurance premium tax. And I just say we take to that meeting one alternative. I
didn’t say it was the exclusive alternative on the Coliseum Authority, but we can’t ignore
the Coliseum Authority. We just can’t sit up here and approve money to the Convention
& Visitors Bureau, to the Sports Council and other entities to promote this city when we
are having that work undone by the activities over at the Coliseum Authority. And I
know it’s being undone because I got the Wesleyan Christian Advocate weeks ago and
that’s a publication that goes out to Methodist laity, Methodist preachers, and all over this
state. And I think we’ve got to respond. It is compromising the amount of money that we
are paying to subsidize and to invest in the promotion of tourism in this community, and
we’ve got to deal with it. It’s not -- it’s just -- these all are things that are on our plate.
There may have been five that they said concentrate on. Well, I think that circumstances
have forced all of these issues on us, and we might as well just belly-up and vote on them
all. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Beard?
Mr. Beard: Mr. Mayor, I think we are all saying basically the same thing, just a
matter of what we are going to do here. When we talk about these items, I think the only
thing we’ve said here was that we were trying to comply with what the Delegation asked
us to comply with. They in essence told us at the meeting, like we did last year, you can
send five or six pages up there if you want to, but we’re not going to deal with that. The
outline, procedure of what they wanted, and that’s what our committee tried to work
within that procedure. We are agreeing, I think everybody up here agree, that the
seriousness of the Coliseum, that is a very serious issue. We can say we’re going to
abolish that, but realistically we know that the people at the General Assembly will have
to abolish that. They don’t go back until January. We know that they are going to stay
up there 40 days, through March, battling this issue of what they are going to do with the
th
Coliseum. This probably will come up on the 20, and I’m sure if nothing comes from
th
this meeting, it will come up on the 20, and we are going to have to deal with it. But the
only thing we’re saying in opposition to that is that let’s try the meeting first. And that is
the only difference first. Let’s try the meeting first. If that doesn’t happen, we have to
th
deal with it on the 20 anyway. These people over there at the Coliseum, unless we get
them together immediately and they start some actions as a body of there -- they can’t
pay their bills, they can’t do anything -- we all realize that this is a standstill over there.
48
So let’s get the committee together and see what they are going to do. If they’re not
going to do anything, then we move forward on whatever we have to do in working with
the General Assembly. And that’s all. Mr. Mayor, one clarification. I made a motion and
I don’t think you recognized that motion that I made a few minutes ago, because you
didn’t ask for a second.
Mr. Mayor: I did. And there was a second, as I recall.
The Clerk: I don’t have it.
Mr. Mayor: I thought I heard Mr. Williams second it. Didn’t you second it, Mr.
Williams?
Mr. Williams: I did.
Mr. Beard: [inaudible]
The Clerk: [inaudible]
Mr. Beard: I’m sorry, I didn’t hear it.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Kuhlke?
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Beard, I understand where you’re coming from. You know, I
look at it this way. Our Delegation ought to be representing this community, and to tell
us to put five issues on the table to me is somewhat ridiculous. You may want to get it
down to five issues, but I look at the Coliseum Authority, I think they’re doing a
miserable job over there, and I’ve said that publicly before. And I look at an organization
over there that’s got a payroll that’s almost a million dollars and they are going to bring
in a little over $400,000 in income. Hell, we did off better for them to close down. So I
think it’s an important issue. I think it’s an issue that ought to be put on the table. I
know it’s going to be discussed. But I don’t want to leave it hanging out there. I think --
I thought the whole idea of your committee was to get with the Delegation and put some
issues on the table early on so that they could be thinking about them. So, you know, you
don’t want, you don’t want what Steve’s got or what I’ve said to go on that agenda, but I
think we’re making a terrible mistake not putting it out front.
Mr. Mayor: We have a substitute motion on the floor, that is to submit the list of
six items that we have presented from the committee, without amendment. All in favor
of that substitute motion, please vote aye.
Mr. Cheek: I wanted some clarity on that substitute motion one more time,
please.
The Clerk: You want it read back to you?
49
Mr. Cheek: If you don’t mind.
The Clerk: It’s as listed with no amendments. Items 1 through 6.
Mr. Mayor: Madame Clerk, since the Chair can vote to make a tie, the Chair will
vote No.
(Vote on substitute motion)
Mr. Shepard, Mr. Bridges, Mr. Cheek, Mr. Kuhlke and the Mayor vote No.
Motion fails 5-5.
Mr. Mayor: That takes us to the original motion. Is there any further discussion
on the original motion?
Mr. Cheek: Just quickly, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: I just, for the life of me, it keeps coming back into my mind that this
was at least mentioned, if not formally presented, to this Commission that within 2 to 3
months of the operating year of the Coliseum, they were already in the red more this year
than they were last year. And again, it’s amazing to me that we are putting such a
heightened sense of urgency on something that we should have known about and acted on
much sooner than we are taking action now.
Mr. Mayor: Discussion on the original motion?
Mr. Colclough: What is the original motion?
The Clerk: The original motion was to approve items 1 through 6, with the
addition of the mosquito control and that the Coliseum issue be placed on the Joint
Legislative Committee agenda as an alternative to abolishment.
Mr. Colclough: Thank you, ma’am.
Mr. Mayor: Anything further?
Mr. Mays: Mr. Mayor?
Mr. Mayor: Yes, Mr. Mays?
Mr. Mays:
And I think we are trying to [inaudible] out of this. Is there no way
within that amendment on the Coliseum Authority that we do not word an opinion? If the
intent is to get it on there with the Delegation for discussion, then can it be simply on
there as that, for discussion of the meeting held previously, two weeks prior? And I
guess what I’m getting at to a point, I don’t mind voting to add that on there for
50
discussion, but not with a pre-determined answer to it, and if you, if what I’m looking at
to a point that if you’re not going to address it in two weeks -- it’s like Chicken Little and
th
the sky is falling, and you’re going to save it to the 20 -- what that says to me is we are
[inaudible]. I don’t mind compromising and saying okay, fine, let’s put it on there for the
th
20 to discuss the follow-up on what we’ve discussed. That way it is on there for
discussion, and it means that we have also carried out a meeting that we previously said
we’d have. But what I’m looking down the road is we are going to end up doing like the
Coliseum Authority and just, quite frankly, punk out on the issue and then don’t show up
ourselves. So that way we don’t have to have a meeting, and the only one we have is the
th
one on the 20 to decide on what’s going to be [inaudible]. And I’m willing to vote for
to add it in that manner to put it on after we have discussed what’s going to
that,
happen with the Coliseum Authority meeting that we plan to have.
That way it gets
everybody’s [inaudible] on the floor.
Mr. Kuhlke: Mr. Mayor, could I ask Mr. Shepard -- I think he made the
motion, Mr. Mays -- if he would maybe amend his motion that we add it to the
agenda with the Delegation for discussion?
Mr. Shepard: I will accept that amendment.
Mr. Mays: As a follow-up to the meeting that we have.
Mr. Kuhlke: As a follow-up to the meeting we are going to have.
Mr. Shepard: I’ll twice accept that amendment.
Mr. Mays: So that means that if we ain’t had no meeting, it ain’t on there.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams?
Mr. Mays: No, I’m saying you [inaudible], if you’ve not had a meeting --
Mr. Mayor: That would be one way to interpret that.
Mr. Mays: What I’m doing is I’m going to vote it to add it on there to discuss it,
but to a point I want y’all to not do like the Coliseum Authority, and show up a meeting
that we have to meet with the folk. Cause I mean I don’t have a representative, Bill
doesn’t have one. I don’t know what’s going on. I got something here from the
chairman and I’m sure there are board members who want to share that may have an
opposing opinion. We need to talk to these folk. But if we going to take the attitude that
we going to put it on there with that type of already assault plan already engaged for
attack, then that means we ain’t going to have no meeting with these folk.
Mr. Mayor: The assault plan has been taken off, Mr. Mays.
Mr. Shepard: May I speak to that, Mr. Mayor?
51
Mr. Mayor: Yes.
Mr. Shepard:both those amendments are
That, Mr. Mays, that would be --
acceptable to the maker
, and I think the Commissioners up here on this end of the table
are willing to be at the meeting that you want to have with that delegation. I think we’ve
already -- some of us have already telegraphed one of the tools in the tool box, and I’m
certainly -- when I first made the motion, that was one which I wanted to consider. And
there could be others. If somebody comes up with a better mousetrap, hey, this
Commissioner is listening. But I think with the amendments we have now, we’re talking
about putting it on for discussion, and that’s -- the two amendments you both suggested
are find with the maker. I can’t remember who seconded it.
Mr. Mayor: Let’s hear from Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. I’m in favor of the meeting of the
Commission and their appointees. I heard about shutting it down, abolishing it, doing
away with it. And if somebody else got a plan that if you abolish it, what’s going to
happen then. I mean if ain’t nothing going on now, and you abolish it, ain’t nothing
going on. So I don’t understand that. So I need to hear if we -- if it comes to that,
whether it be at this meeting, next meeting, but whoever brainstorm the idea of abolishing
it ought to have something else in place, and I as a Commissioner like to know what’s
that going be. Why in the world would you consider -- I can see you saying well, let’s
take the whole group out and put another group in. But if you talking about even thinking
about abolishing, then you got another alternate plan somewhere. So I want to hear the
alternate plan. I want to know what else you going do with it? Now here we are talking
about the economic growth and the [inaudible] all the other things we want to bring to
this city, but then one of us even blurt out closing it down, shutting it up. You going to
let it sit there when the previous chairman that was there was supposed to bring us reports
back. Right in that committee room next door, saying we’ll bring you monthly reports. I
hadn’t seen not one. No Commissioner, no Mayor, no Attorney, no Administrator have
brought anything of that effect. Here we are now, we up against the wall again, Mr.
Mayor. We always get up against the wall. Look like when you get up against the wall
you going to come out and most time they come out wrong. But I can’t see how we can
sit here and even think about or talk about abolishing when we have not even found out
what the problem is over there. So I agree we ought to meet. We ought to talk. And
maybe we end up doing that. But if you going to end up doing that, we ought to be
thinking as men who are supposed to be governing and guiding this city as to what is the
next step. Now you going to make a circus out of it and you going to sell it somebody
and let them run it, you going to open a skating rink? We ought to have some else to do
with it rather than just sit here talking about abolishing. That ought to be the last thing
we talk about as leaders. We ought to be trying to add to it, [inaudible] shutting it down.
Don’t make good sense to me. But a lot of stuff don’t.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Williams, to respond to your question about options to do with
it, Mr. Kolb prepared a report on that with difference scenarios on it, if the Coliseum
52
Authority would go away. And that was handed out to the Commission about three
weeks ago, I believe it was. And if you didn’t get a copy of that, I’ll be glad to furnish
you with a copy of that.
Mr. Williams: I’ve got a copy of that, Mr. Mayor, but I’m going to make
statement. Not only, not only can he not do that because it’s the, it’s the Legislature’s
decision, but we have got stuff that we handle right now up against the wall. We’re not
doing what we supposed to do. Are we going to add something else that we supposed to
be doing that we ain’t going be doing? That’s all that going be if you could do that.
Mr. Mayor: Mr. Cheek?
Mr. Cheek: Mr. Mayor, I just [inaudible] it’s just as consistent as hire/fire. We
had no policies in place, but we were going to vote for it anyway. And to me, until we
work out the details on these things we ought not to be voting on them or bringing them
to the floor, and the truth is we can come up with a complete slate and a program, but
unless we have the buy-in of the Legislative Delegation, then we’re just basically seeking
headlines and popular opinion. The truth of the matter is that for any new legislation,
there needs to be a plan in place first, not after the fact. And those of us on this board that
are guilty of grabbing headlines without a plan in place are the ones that are dooming this
government to repeat the same mistakes of the past, and I’ll be damned if I’ll be part of it.
Mr. Williams: Second to that.
Mr. Mayor: All right. We have a motion on the floor.
Mr. Beard: I just need to hear the motion.
Mr. Mayor: I was going to ask the Clerk if she could read that again.
The Clerk: The motion was to approve the draft list items 1 through 6, with the
inclusion of the mosquito control program and add that the Coliseum Authority be added
as a discussion item to the Joint Legislative Committee meeting on September 20. And
that is to a follow-up to the previous meeting that hasn’t been set. Is that right, Mr.
Mays?
Mr. Mays: Yes, ma’am.
The Clerk: Regarding the Coliseum Authority activities?
Mr. Mays: Yes, ma’am. On the date that you gentlemen agree to come meet.
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: And the reference to the mosquito control program would be the text
of the resolution that’s in item number 52.
53
Mr. Shepard: That’s correct.
Mr. Mayor: As a matter of reference.
The Clerk: Yes, sir.
Mr. Mayor: All in favor of the motion, please vote aye.
(Vote on original motion)
Motion carries 9-0.
Mr. Mayor: We’ve already done 52, so that takes us to --
Mr. Cheek: I have a question on 52, Mr. Mayor.
Mr. Mayor: All right.
Mr. Cheek: Just for clarification. Have we identified personnel in Utilities,
Public Works and Recreation to begin training with the Health Department on the
dispensing of the larvicide tablets yet?
Mr. Kolb: They have been directed to do and they understand. I cannot tell you.
I will get you a report to that effect and where the program is.
Mr. Cheek: With this seasonal rainfall that we seem to be getting, right now
might be a good time for us to kill a bunch of those suckers.
Mr. Mayor: That takes us up to the legal meeting. Mr. Wall?
53. LEGAL MEETING
??
Discuss real estate matter.
??
Discuss pending and potential litigation.
??
Discuss personnel matters.
Mr. Wall: Request a legal meeting to discuss three items listed: real estate
matter, pending and potential litigation and personnel matters.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any objection? None heard. We’ll go into legal meeting.
[LEGAL MEETING 4:45 – 6:30 p.m.]
54. Motion to approve authorization for the Mayor to execute affidavit of
compliance with Georgia's Open Meetings Act.
Mr. Shepard: I so move.
54
Mr. Cheek: Second.
Mr. Mayor: Any objection? None heard.
Mr. Mays, Mr. Beard and Mr. Williams out.
Motion carries 6-0.
Mr. Mayor: Is there any more business to come before the body? We are
adjourned without objection.
[MEETING ADJOURNED]
Lena J. Bonner
Clerk of Commission
CERTIFICATION:
I, Lena J. Bonner, Clerk of Commission, hereby certify that the above is a true and
correct copy of the minutes of the Regular Meeting of Augusta Richmond County
Commission held on September 3, 2002.
Clerk of Commission
55